Dan Rather's* Shell Game?
Prerequisite read the "Dan Rather's* Legacy" post.
First off, in defending the story and there being NO need to look any further into this issue, Dan Rather* stated a few days ago that HIS source for these documents was "unimpeachable." Now HIS source for these documents is admitting that he LIED about the documents. Is this the sort of source that Dan Rather* thinks is "unimpeachable?" Has Dan Rather* EVER stated that he had an anonymous, "unimpeachable" source before? Have those sources been as "unimpeachable" as this guy? Has Dan Rather* screwed up other stories with "unimpeachable" sources and never been questioned on them because documents were either real or less obvious forgeries? When a respected newsperson assures us that his source is unimpeachable... that source had better be just that.
So it appears that Dan Rather* and CBS News chose to answer the first question in the "Dan Rather's* Legacy" post with the fourth (least damaging legally) of the possibilities which I put forth last Friday about three days before Dan Rather* apologized. (You know, with the POOR "expert" advice that Dan Rather* and CBS News have been getting lately, I wonder if they used my post last Friday as the basis for the legal advice to choose the least damaging possibility put forth by me. Legal advice from me, a non-lawyer, would be no worse than the so-called document expert advice used in this report.) To refresh, it was "4) Dan Rather* really had no idea these were forgeries." And the consequences were listed as "If this, the least damaging "legally" of the options, is the truth, then there would be no intentional wrongdoing. However, what does it say to Dan Rather* and CBS's competence or lack thereof? If a relatively new reporter missed such obvious forgeries that's bad. If the anchor missed them that's worse. If the executive producer missed it, it is unbelievable incompetence." Out of curiosity, do YOU believe Dan Rather* to be an incompetent boob, or a shrewd experienced newsman?
As for the “unimpeachable” source…
In an ironic twist the self-impeached, "unimpeachable" source to which Dan Rather* referred, Bill Burkett, stated that he provided the documents and deliberately misled CBS to protect 'his' source. This is using the most damaging legally of the possibilities in my post "1) Worst case, Dan Rather*, or someone working on this story typed these forgeries to revive the story they had been working on for four years." The consequences listed as "I have heard rumors that the "real" documents are handwritten, or in some way would identify the source, and that CBS forged the typed documents to "protect" their source. If this were the case it would have been easy for Dan Rather* to have said that "These are retyped copies to protect our source." in the report. Then at worst Dan Rather* would be guilty of using inaccurate documents, but avoid the possibility of forgery charges. If this is true, Dan Rather*, and any other CBS people envolved should be prosecuted for forgery, and election tampering." As for the criminal charges, Dan Rather* has the freedom of the press to hide behind which makes criminal charges less likely. However, Bill Burkett is nothing more than a democratic advisor wannabe. Fraud and election tampering charges would be easy to file against him. Just as in the Sandy Berger stealing top secret government documents case I doubt that the Bush administration’s Justice Department will pursue charges so as not to be accused of abusing power to go after political adversaries. But ask yourself this. Who could his source be that he is willing to risk jail to protect? Or ask this. Is he smart enough to realize that he just admitted to a fraud used to effect an election?
As for the “unimpeachable” source’s motive…
Bill Burkett now says that in exchange for giving CBS the EXACT (forged) documents they needed to revive a four year old, otherwise dead story, CBS set up a phone call between Bill Burkett and a top Kerry aid. Is this standard operating procedure at CBS? How close a relationship does someone need with the Kerry campaign to call up and say, “Hey, I’ve got this guy who would like to talk with you. Could we set up a phone call?” then, Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign CALLED Bill Burkett! This they have admitted! Now according to CBS, this was accomplished without saying anything like, “The reason I want to set up this call is that in exchange for your calling this guy he will give CBS what it needs to damage your political opponent.” AND, they want you to believe that after using these (forged) documents as a bargaining chip to get an audience with Joe Lockhart, that Bill Burkett did not use this opportunity to say something like “Dude, I’ve got just what you need to get Kerry elected.” Instead, he does not mention these documents at all! I know that die-hard democrats will SAY they believe that load of crap, but is there ANYONE in the country REALLY gullible enough to believe this? (If you happen to know one of these people, let me know. I have this bridge in Brooklyn I’ve been trying to sell for quite a while.) How much collaboration does there have to be between a campaign and a so-called news organization to cause the campaign finance reform act to kick in and cause the CBS News to stop all broadcasts 30 days before the election?
As for the half apology from Dan Rather*… (Oh, you disagree? Read the following with an open mind to the truth.)
Dan Rather*, in his apology Monday, left the uninformed viewer with at least two MAJOR misconceptions. 1) He said that if they knew then what they know now the report would not have aired as it did, with the (forged) memos. A more accurate statement would have been the report would not have aired at all. These (forged) documents WERE the story. If the story could stand on its own, they could have aired it any time over the last four or so years. 2) He did not say that the documents were forged. He did not say that they might be forged. He did not say that HE doubted their authenticity. All he said was that since CBS does not know exactly where the documents came from, he could not vouch for their authenticity. (As if a vouch of authenticity from Dan Rather* and his “unimpeachable” source means anything.) By carefully wording the apology, Dan Rather* leads one to believe, and he has since outright stated, that Dan Rather* still believes these forged documents to be real. This will cause the two or three people in America who still place ANY faith in the word of Dan Rather* to believe the documents to be authentic. This also makes it a NON-APOLOGY. What Dan Rather* should have been apologizing for, and many, erroneously think he did apologize for, is using forged documents in his report. But what his word sculpting actually said is, “The documents are real. Trust me. Everyone else in the world is too stupid to understand the facts. Oh yeah, by the way, I am sorry about the way I got my hands on the ‘authentic’, ‘unimpeachable’ documents.”
So, if Dan Rather* truly had NO idea he was being duped, does CBS News not need to find someone more competent to anchor an executive produce the news?
* Dan Rather*, once respected reporter, news anchor and ABC news executive producer, left in humiliation after using forged documents to prop up a weak story that a first year journalism student would probably have known enough to pass on. It casts a shadow of doubt on all that Dan Rather* was involved in throughout his career.
Read more about it and…
About eight paragraphs down they get to the "innocent" phone call http://edition.cnn.com/2004/
ALLPOLITICS/09/21/cbs.kerry.adviser/index.html
Read about not admitting forgery. Rather Fails to Admit Forgery or Apologize for Impugning Critics --9/21/2004-- Media Research Center
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
First off, in defending the story and there being NO need to look any further into this issue, Dan Rather* stated a few days ago that HIS source for these documents was "unimpeachable." Now HIS source for these documents is admitting that he LIED about the documents. Is this the sort of source that Dan Rather* thinks is "unimpeachable?" Has Dan Rather* EVER stated that he had an anonymous, "unimpeachable" source before? Have those sources been as "unimpeachable" as this guy? Has Dan Rather* screwed up other stories with "unimpeachable" sources and never been questioned on them because documents were either real or less obvious forgeries? When a respected newsperson assures us that his source is unimpeachable... that source had better be just that.
So it appears that Dan Rather* and CBS News chose to answer the first question in the "Dan Rather's* Legacy" post with the fourth (least damaging legally) of the possibilities which I put forth last Friday about three days before Dan Rather* apologized. (You know, with the POOR "expert" advice that Dan Rather* and CBS News have been getting lately, I wonder if they used my post last Friday as the basis for the legal advice to choose the least damaging possibility put forth by me. Legal advice from me, a non-lawyer, would be no worse than the so-called document expert advice used in this report.) To refresh, it was "4) Dan Rather* really had no idea these were forgeries." And the consequences were listed as "If this, the least damaging "legally" of the options, is the truth, then there would be no intentional wrongdoing. However, what does it say to Dan Rather* and CBS's competence or lack thereof? If a relatively new reporter missed such obvious forgeries that's bad. If the anchor missed them that's worse. If the executive producer missed it, it is unbelievable incompetence." Out of curiosity, do YOU believe Dan Rather* to be an incompetent boob, or a shrewd experienced newsman?
As for the “unimpeachable” source…
In an ironic twist the self-impeached, "unimpeachable" source to which Dan Rather* referred, Bill Burkett, stated that he provided the documents and deliberately misled CBS to protect 'his' source. This is using the most damaging legally of the possibilities in my post "1) Worst case, Dan Rather*, or someone working on this story typed these forgeries to revive the story they had been working on for four years." The consequences listed as "I have heard rumors that the "real" documents are handwritten, or in some way would identify the source, and that CBS forged the typed documents to "protect" their source. If this were the case it would have been easy for Dan Rather* to have said that "These are retyped copies to protect our source." in the report. Then at worst Dan Rather* would be guilty of using inaccurate documents, but avoid the possibility of forgery charges. If this is true, Dan Rather*, and any other CBS people envolved should be prosecuted for forgery, and election tampering." As for the criminal charges, Dan Rather* has the freedom of the press to hide behind which makes criminal charges less likely. However, Bill Burkett is nothing more than a democratic advisor wannabe. Fraud and election tampering charges would be easy to file against him. Just as in the Sandy Berger stealing top secret government documents case I doubt that the Bush administration’s Justice Department will pursue charges so as not to be accused of abusing power to go after political adversaries. But ask yourself this. Who could his source be that he is willing to risk jail to protect? Or ask this. Is he smart enough to realize that he just admitted to a fraud used to effect an election?
As for the “unimpeachable” source’s motive…
Bill Burkett now says that in exchange for giving CBS the EXACT (forged) documents they needed to revive a four year old, otherwise dead story, CBS set up a phone call between Bill Burkett and a top Kerry aid. Is this standard operating procedure at CBS? How close a relationship does someone need with the Kerry campaign to call up and say, “Hey, I’ve got this guy who would like to talk with you. Could we set up a phone call?” then, Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign CALLED Bill Burkett! This they have admitted! Now according to CBS, this was accomplished without saying anything like, “The reason I want to set up this call is that in exchange for your calling this guy he will give CBS what it needs to damage your political opponent.” AND, they want you to believe that after using these (forged) documents as a bargaining chip to get an audience with Joe Lockhart, that Bill Burkett did not use this opportunity to say something like “Dude, I’ve got just what you need to get Kerry elected.” Instead, he does not mention these documents at all! I know that die-hard democrats will SAY they believe that load of crap, but is there ANYONE in the country REALLY gullible enough to believe this? (If you happen to know one of these people, let me know. I have this bridge in Brooklyn I’ve been trying to sell for quite a while.) How much collaboration does there have to be between a campaign and a so-called news organization to cause the campaign finance reform act to kick in and cause the CBS News to stop all broadcasts 30 days before the election?
As for the half apology from Dan Rather*… (Oh, you disagree? Read the following with an open mind to the truth.)
Dan Rather*, in his apology Monday, left the uninformed viewer with at least two MAJOR misconceptions. 1) He said that if they knew then what they know now the report would not have aired as it did, with the (forged) memos. A more accurate statement would have been the report would not have aired at all. These (forged) documents WERE the story. If the story could stand on its own, they could have aired it any time over the last four or so years. 2) He did not say that the documents were forged. He did not say that they might be forged. He did not say that HE doubted their authenticity. All he said was that since CBS does not know exactly where the documents came from, he could not vouch for their authenticity. (As if a vouch of authenticity from Dan Rather* and his “unimpeachable” source means anything.) By carefully wording the apology, Dan Rather* leads one to believe, and he has since outright stated, that Dan Rather* still believes these forged documents to be real. This will cause the two or three people in America who still place ANY faith in the word of Dan Rather* to believe the documents to be authentic. This also makes it a NON-APOLOGY. What Dan Rather* should have been apologizing for, and many, erroneously think he did apologize for, is using forged documents in his report. But what his word sculpting actually said is, “The documents are real. Trust me. Everyone else in the world is too stupid to understand the facts. Oh yeah, by the way, I am sorry about the way I got my hands on the ‘authentic’, ‘unimpeachable’ documents.”
So, if Dan Rather* truly had NO idea he was being duped, does CBS News not need to find someone more competent to anchor an executive produce the news?
* Dan Rather*, once respected reporter, news anchor and ABC news executive producer, left in humiliation after using forged documents to prop up a weak story that a first year journalism student would probably have known enough to pass on. It casts a shadow of doubt on all that Dan Rather* was involved in throughout his career.
Read more about it and…
About eight paragraphs down they get to the "innocent" phone call http://edition.cnn.com/2004/
ALLPOLITICS/09/21/cbs.kerry.adviser/index.html
Read about not admitting forgery. Rather Fails to Admit Forgery or Apologize for Impugning Critics --9/21/2004-- Media Research Center
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home