Those Discredited Memos (FR Mentioned)

NY Times ^ | September 13, 2004 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

[BunnySlippers]

The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "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" and questioned the critics' "motivation."

Rather apparently thinks that the douments are real "until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not" ... that's not the way for a real newsman to approach the burden of proof. Furthermore, one would be well to question his "motivation".

[Dane]

The same article has made the German magazine, Der Spiegel.

Link

[Tamzee]

Thanks, good to have!

If Rather doesn't retract the story within a day or two I'm definitely filing a complaint.

[GailA]

All efforts has been focused on the type/font and some on the language and dates. But no focus has been put on the fact these are photo copies which can NOT be subjected to scientific testing such as checking rag content of the paper, ink components, carbon dating, measuring paper size, and putting it under a microscope to see if they were produced by a computer printer which would spray/float the ink on the surface of the paper vs the typewriter keystriking the paper and embeding the ink into the paper.

A hunt and peck typist would have a different patter of typing than a proficient typist would produce.

Without 'REAL' scientific testing cBS and 60 mins have diddly squat in evidence!

No defense lawyer worth his salt would let a prosecutor get away with such shoddy evidence as danny boy has presented in a court of law.

[Blueflag]

Amen Travis!

Now Rather MUST address "the seriousness of the charges".

Safire makes 'em legit in the MSM world.

Can you imagine the comments made behind Rather's back < /snicker /guffaw >?

[litany_of_lies]

"To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition."

Although I like the Safire piece, I would contend that shutting up sources and impugning motives IS the Murrow tradition, and Safire's incorrect view of the Murrow tradition is convenient at the moment.

[handy]

How ironic. NYT opinion columnist reports the news since he knows the "reporters" won't do it.

[Travis McGee]

Rather is already a laughing stock.

He'll be gone by October: the rest of CBS News will not want to go down with his ship.

[kellynla]

Thanx for posting.
It would be the only way I would get to read it since I don't even bother to go to the NYT website anymore...

But Safire after revealing all the MSM who contradicts Dan Blather appears to be trying to make excuses for the bias at "See B.S."...

Guess what Safire...that dog won' hunt..
Blather & company just got "punked"...
and now they're the laughing stock of the world!

[COURAGE]

I see nuthing...I hear nuthing...I know nuthing....

[gopwinsin04]

[mabelkitty]

True, but then again, we'd just sue.
We have lots of posters, and lost of time on our hands. Haven't you heard? We sit around in our pajamas all day. ; )

[ladyjane]

Token quasi-conservative is right. Notice he said "... from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - "

He does write well, however. I always had a sneaking suspicion that he was quidam of days past. It would make sense that if Safire got a tip he could have his alter ego, quidam, run it up the flagpole over here and see if it got shot down.

[LTCJ]

There are a lot of interesting parallels between this CBS memo story and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story. In both cases the mainstream media felt like they were in control of the clock. They delayed acknowledging known events, with the effect of exacerbating rather than ameliorating the negative impact of stories which played against their candidate.

In military parlance it's called the decison cycle, and thanks to AlGore's Internet, we are most definitely operating "inside" the MSM's timescale. Their relatively few reporters, additonally burdened with bias in a lot of cases, cannot out-investigate thousands of netizens with a wide background of expertise.

[ladyjane]

I just called the number for the FCC that you posted.

Toll Free: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) (You have to deal with a two number menus and finally punching zero got me to a live person.)

The lady seemed nice. She said the FCC has "nothing to do with the content of what television stations air" WHAT!!!???? I discussed that point with her a bit but she was adamant.

So then I mentioned Janet Jackson's breast and she said -"That was different. In that case we got lots and lots of complaints"

Sounds like they are looking for lots and lots of complaints!

[NewLand]

Look up Ronin...

[dano1]

"Their relatively few reporters, additionally burdened with bias in a lot of cases, cannot out-investigate thousands of netizens with a wide background of expertise."

Excellent point. Similar also to the open source movement in software.

[Biblebelter]

This is the article that Rather cannot run from. It is good summary of the problems with the forgeries. It appears in the NYT. It is written by someone who probably has some affection for Rather unlike me and everyone else on this forum.

[Ronin]

That's a slander! I never FReep wearing pajamas! I'm more of a boxer-short and coffee cup kinda guy.

[xzins]

At the end of this piece, Safire tries to pull Rather's chestnuts from the fire. Pretty much says, "I owe him one 'cause he did me a favor once."

If Rather is complicit, Safire, that is the more important issue.