CBS *PREPARING* for havoc? (CBS's own web page on controversy born 9/6, two days before interview!)

Self | 9-12-04 | Self

[streetrepair]

FReepers,

I first must say how impressed I am (not to mention thankful) for Howlin and Buckhead, and all others who broke this story before anyone else, including Drudge, et el.

I stated this (gasp) Vanity thread as I believe I have found evidence of premeditation on the part of CBS.

I am particularly suspicious of a CBS web page with the title:

"More Controversy Over Bush Docs"

Once clicking on the link, you should see up in your address bar the following:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

My eyes latched onto the date in the URL -- 2004/09/06 (the 6th was last Monday). Why would a story that didn't break until late Wednesday, right here on FR, have a URL with last Monday's date, on -- of all web sites -- CBS' OWN WEB SITE?!

Did CBS create and begin preparation on a web page last Monday, to get a jumpstart in the event they would be found out?

The screen capture below shows that the document was last updated on September 11, 2004 at 19:47:57. However, the URL in the same screen capture would lead one to believe that the web page was created on September 6 (last Monday) -- two full days before Rather's interview aired.

I pondered....

Perhaps all stories are stored in folders on CBS' server with a date that always begins on Monday (since Monday is the first work day of each week).

I quickly found this wasn't the case. There are many stories on CBS' server where 2004/09/11 or 2004/09/10, etc. can be found in the URL. These dates did not fall on Mondays.

[streetrepair]

Comments? If Admin Mod's don't believe this finding belongs in "breaking news," please move thread to general posting section and I apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you.

[TXnMA]

Bam! Another nail in CBS/Rather's coffin...!

Good find!

[finnman69]

I think its fairly common to work on a 'story' and release it on a pre-determined date. Especially if its not breaking news.

[OldFriend]

Just hyping their upcoming so called 'revelation'.

[nuffsenuff]

I've actually seen this from CBS before...

They have an annoying tendency to post newer stories on older links (dated as you just noted).

There's no rhyme or reason to it.

[Drango]

In anycase, CBS's response to the controversy is about as good as a 4th grader trying to explain how the dog ate his homework.

[sirchtruth]

"Holy cystal ball Batman!"

This is unbelievable. I wrote in another thread to be careful of being "setup." by this thing...

[sirchtruth]

Oh my, I forgot my /sarc tag in the previous post!

[FormerACLUmember]

EXCELLENT DETECTIVE WORK!

Rather/CBS/Kerry/DNC knew they were lying and were preparing a cover-up for the inevitable reaction. CBS underestimated the Internet reaction to its forgeries, and overestimates its rapidly waning influence.

[ConservativeMan55]

BTTT!!!

[Henchman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml Does bear a date that is consistent with premeditation BUT it is not definitive. There is a need to review the page source for any added data. Page source reveals: The page was written / placed on the WWW on SEPT11 based on the data I saw. There is one more trick. If there is a date on the server and IF the server is accessable from the public, then we have more information. Other than that, nice catch, but no cigar.

[texas booster]

The webmistress may have reused a page from the 6th and just left it there in that folder, or may have started on the story on the 6th, both easily possible.

I tend to vote for incompetence over conspiracy, especially with big organizations.

[Henchman]

As Freep sometimes eats the "<" or ">" indicators of meta tag I will print the data on the source page without the meta tags to defeat the processing of the meta tags.

Page source reveals: "<" meta name="doc_date" content="September 11, 2004 19:47:57" ">"

Please note, right now we have credibility, let's not waste it on erroneous data or jumping to conclusions until we have them cold. Again, the subject may still be valid, but not definitive.

[irish guard]

If our IS guys are any indication....its nothing more that a couple of lazy "putzes" who do the website.....nothing more.

[texas booster]

One of my friends was at WFAA in Dallas in 2000 when the message went out over the AP that Gore was caught biting off a child's arm in Austin.

Turned out he was teaching a new blonde bimbo reporterette how the system worked. She hit "send" instead of "save" and broadcast the fake news article to the world.

Jesse gets fired because on-air talent never makes mistakes.

Incompetence, incontinence and conspiracy, in that order, will explain most happenings in big media.

[RGSpincich]

Preparing a defense for memo gate. "We were clueless. We don't even know what day it is half the time."

[johnny7]

Uhhh... you would think that all documents on a running story would be kept in a folder where its contents could be updated when needed. Gif, pict, jpeg's, word documents... would all be dumped into a folder on a specified server available to all involved.

The folder would most likely be named and dated... dated when the story broke... 9/6/2004.

Seems OK to me.

[HapaxLegamenon]

I think the answer lies in the fact that CBS has been forced to updated its Bush AWOL story. In other words, the info about how the docs are being challenged are being pasted onto the original story, to the point now that it IS the story.

It is just a guess, but I have unimpeachable sources, such as a DNC political operative, a handwriting expert, and a dead man to back my story.

[BenLurkin]

Amazed you can stand dragging yourself through the democrat media.

One thing's for sure.

Bush never collaborated with the enemy the way Kerrry did.

Whatever Bush did in or after his time in the service.

[BenLurkin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213814/posts