Rather Defends CBS's Use of Memos (WP not buying it).

washington post ^ | 9/10/2004 | Howard Kurtz

[jhouston]

Dan Rather vigorously defended his "60 Minutes" story on President Bush's National Guard service yesterday, saying the 30-year-old memos he disclosed on the show this week "were and remain authentic," despite questions raised by some handwriting and document experts.

[jhouston]

Read story. Exposes producer's past. Lot's of subtle hits on Rather's credibility.

[bannie]

I guess "They're not Haines until HE says they're Haines!"

[Travis McGee]

CBS: Not Sinking!

Capt. Rather On Bridge!

'Rats Deserting Ship!

[hispanarepublicana]

Rather Defends CBS's Use of Memos (WP not buying it).

Okay......did you EVER IN YOUR LIFE think you'd post a thread with this title? The worm has turned, my friend. Old Media is trying like hell to be hip.

[bannie]

Not all of the rats are exiting: At least one is wearing the captain's uniform and standing (albeit, awkwardly) on his two hind legs.

[Torie]

I am sure that CBS will allow other experts to examine the documents their non experts examined. But of course it is all moot, because even if the documents were forged, they reflected what Dan Rather's sources said was on Killian's mind at the time, well maybe not what was on his mind, but "consistent" with something or other. The message from CBS is that it is time to move on from the documents, and just look at Bush's guard record again, for maybe the 5th time or so.

[bobono]

O'Reilly: Did Clinton Lie?

Rather: Yes, he did

O'Reilly: Is Clinton a liar?

Rather No. I believe he is an honest man.

O'Reilly: How can you say that?

Rather: I believe you can tell lies and still be an honest man.

And some people still trust this guy for their news reports?

[Howlin]

I fell like dancing.....and I can't get this smile off my face.

[tioga]

Hodges has recanted some, he believed that the memo was entirely in Killian's handwriting, thinks CBS has set him up.

ra^ther is toast.

[Sloth]

Exactly. Why should important people like Dan get bogged down in petty matters of 'facts' or 'evidence' when we could be spending this time talking about the feelings of people who don't like President Bush?

[eddie willers]

for maybe the 5th time or so.

Make that..."for maybe the 5^th time or so".

[Travis McGee]

--snip--

"Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill," the CBS anchor said. "My colleagues and I at '60 Minutes' made great efforts to authenticate these documents and to corroborate the story as best we could. . . . I think the public is smart enough to see from whom some of this criticism is coming and draw judgments about what the motivations are."

--snip--

Rather said that CBS's lead expert was Marcel Matley of San Francisco, a member of the National Association of Document Examiners who has taught, lectured and written about his field, testified in numerous trials and consulted for government agencies. Matley said last night that a "60 Minutes" executive had asked him not to give interviews.

--snip--

CBS News President Andrew Heyward staunchly defended the piece. "I have full confidence in our reporting on this story and in every reporter on both sides of the camera," he said last night. "This is going to hold up. This was thoroughly vetted."

--snip--

"The first rule of public relations is to get all the bad news out right away," said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University's College of Communication. "It looks like CBS News has made some serious errors here, and if so, they should plead nolo contendere and not do the perp walk later."

[formercalifornian]

They will move on because 1. Hurricane 2. Sept. 11 anniversary. After that, everyone will forget the issue or remember the wrong half of it.

[NYCVirago]

Heyward said of the criticism: "It's hard to separate legitimate concern from political blowback and propaganda."

What nonsense. The MSM wouldn't have covered this story if the bloggers didn't raise real issues about the documents. And real experts have said they're fake.

[wardaddy]

wow....WP being skeptical does not bode well for Blackrock...

..so sad....so very very sad.

[Mach9]

Don't find the Post all THAT sceptical. The lib-reliance on so-called experts frequently leads to the inability to see the forest for the trees. Remember the Dems' academic expert on exit polling? Barry Richards tore him apart (and his specialty was law--not exit polling).

[Torie]

I don't call Dems "rats," and I don't do superscript. The style annoys me. :)

[rolling_stone]

Matley, who told Rather last night that he knew the Bush documents would be professional "dynamite" for him, has been involved in several high-profile cases, including a 1997 controversy over purported John F. Kennedy documents. After "60 Minutes" cast doubt on the documents, the man who unearthed them, Lawrence Cusack III, retained Matley in a suit against CBS that was rejected in court. Matley could not vouch for the documents' authenticity.


Interesting how Matley was a witness against CBS before but could not authenticate docs that time......

[HawaiianGecko]

lol, now that's good

[Keith in Iowa]

Rather Defends CBS's Use of Memos (WP not buying it).

Okay......did you EVER IN YOUR LIFE think you'd post a thread with this title? The worm has turned, my friend. Old Media is trying like hell to be hip.

This is a really old media vs old media thing - Newspapers vs TV - and a newspaper will stop at nothing (even if it hurts libs)to crap on TV news. But I do like it so.