But, notice that 60 Minutes ate it up, hook lie, and sucker.
It's time for real coverage of how the news is made. Here's some questions for CBS:
How large is Rather's staff? Does he take "research" from the DNC or their spin-off fronts?
If he's "fed" the "news", is there an inherent bias to keep his handlers in power?
Is there a conflict of interest when your "news" is from people out of power? Is there incentive to slant news to get "your guys" back in?
Does Rather have a dog in this fight? Is that a conflict, not just an appearance of one?
If the DNC is doing Rather's work for him, what are they getting in return? What's the cost? Does CBS pay with their reputation for Rather's "scoops"?
What is the coin of the realm for a one-sided "bribe" in the news field? Is it information?
Given that 60 Minutes isn't revealing their source, this could have any one of a number of agendas.
It could have been from the Kerry organization.
It could have been from a Kerry supporter working independently.
It could have been a Republican misdirection play to discredit the Kerry camp.
It could have been someone angry with or seeking to discredit CBS.
Mr. Cook: I believe that you are guilty of deception yourself.
1) The title of the source web link is not "Case Study: How to Lie to 60 Minutes, by a PR "Crisis Manager". It's "Eye on PR". The word "lie" is never used, and the only lie that I can see that's even implied (about why the web site was down) wasn't directed to 60 Minutes.
2) The excerpt of that page that was posted was prefaced by the following:
"This is an educational, entertaining and creative example of professional tap dancing, spin-doctoring and counter-punching from reader and Crisis Manager George McQuade, currently Vice President of the Internet Account Team at MAYO Communications, Los Angeles."
And I'd say that's pretty accurate. Not exactly the type of behavior that I thought FR encouraged; in fact, it's generally criticized on these pages.
3) Quite simply, at no point is it even alleged anywhere in here that anyone lied to 60 Minutes, never mind showing proof thereof. McQuade's statements to 60 Minutes were quite factual; the person whose statements they covered had voted for the expenditures that she decried, and I will presume that the positive stories were also true. And also note that there's no evidence that 60 Minutes used any of the information that McQuade gave them. And no one, including McQuade, has stated that any of Middleton's statements to 60 Minutes were false.
So, can you tell me why you changed the title from the actual one of the web posting, and why you put the word "lie" in when in fact, no one involved in this is alleged to have lied to 60 Minutes?