Rather's CBS Colleagues in 'Deep Distress'

NewsMax .com ^ | 9/14/04 | Carl Limbacher

[kattracks]

Publicly Dan Rather's CBS colleagues are putting up a brave front as the disgraced newsman desperately tried again last night to defend himself against charges he used forged documents in a bid to discredit President Bush's military record.

But at CBS headquarters in New York the anxiety level has hit the red zone, with even Rather's allies saying they're dazed and confused over his shaky performance. "I'm distressed," one longtime CBS correspondent, who asked not to be identified, told the New York Times.

Another network source described the atmosphere at Black Rock as one of "deep concern."

"I'd say [it's] not panic," he quickly added. "We all want it to be right. Dan really put himself on the line and I can't imagine him knowingly defending something he knew not to be the case."

Another CBS source said there was increasing nervousness over the star anchorman's decision to stonewall on an independent investigation into his dubious Guard report.

"I've talked to colleagues who would love to see more of a defense," he told the Times.

Even Rather's longtime "60 Minutes" colleague, Mike Wallace, found it hard to defend his embattled co-worker.

"I'm confused by some of what I've heard today," he offered, before insisting that if Rather's documents were indeed forged, it was an innocent mistake.

"You're dealing with genuine professionals. The last thing in the world that any of these people would want is to phony something," he told the Times.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Actually, my attorney, my stock broker and the young woman who cuts my hair have the same attitude.
I got to meet Dick Salant when he visited the CBS outlet where I first worked in the scribbling prosession in 1972. A grand old man of broadcasting, Thad Sanstrom of Stauffer Communications in Topeka introduced me. I left the biz in 1980.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Ohmigawd. Robin Rather looks just like her father.

[SampleMan]

Don't get me wrong. They should all be fired...from a cannon. My point is that they aren't going to commit suicide out of some sense of fair play. They are bottom feeders who are only upset at getting caught.

[SampleMan]

My point exactly.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Yup, a hard working enviro/lib/dem. Dan the newsman sure is going to the mat for somebody very important to him. A "source he trusts." Who could it be????

[hershey]

My, my, CBS colleagues think Dan the Man is unhinged. They can't imagine him supporting anything 'dishonest', but some of the evidence is 'troubling'. Whisper, whisper, behind his back. Here on FR we don't whisper behind Dan's back. We say it right to his face. He's crazy. He should resign.

[Beckwith]

Rather keeps repeating these libelous statements even though he know the documents are forgeries.

He's digging his heels in and continuing the assault.

[patriot_wes]

"You're dealing with genuine professionals.[?] The last thing in the world that any of these people would want is to phony something," he told the Times.

PROFESSIONALS? Excuse me , I thought we were talking about the main stream media.

[teeman8r]

shouldn't dan be returning some prestigious integrity award right about now?

and when will this kerry memo hit the cbs air waves:


07 September 2004

To: CBS NEWS
Re: Squelching Bush lead in poles

From: John F. Kerry

Dan,

Just faxed you the latest memo... took some doing as the documents weren't dry yet, but coincidentally it adds to their "authentic look"...

Had a little trouble with the replaceable ball on your old selectimatic but got the hang of it...

Also, do you know there is no number one on that thing? Edwards finally suggested to use the lower case L and it worked like a charm-- wish he told me that two hours earlier.

Any who, do what you can with them and I will make sure that you get that ambassadorship to Iraq.

Keep up the good work and I will see you on the 11th.

JFK

no, the other JFK, Kerry.

no, not Bob KeRREY. John Kerry.

[Tempest]

"I'm confused by some of what I've heard today," he offered, before insisting that if Rather's documents were indeed forged, it was an innocent mistake.

"You're dealing with genuine professionals. The last thing in the world that any of these people would want is to phony something," he told the Times.

My cBS meter went off when I read that

[Uncle Jaque]

To follow up on my #167;

This reply from the FCC, FYI:

******************

From: FCCInfo@fcc.gov 14 Sept. 2004, 1458 hrs.

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Please see the attached fact sheet regarding complaints about broadcast journalism.

This e-mail contains an attachment that is in ".pdf" format. If you are unable to open this attachment, it is most likely because your computer doesn't have Adobe Reader, which is the program needed to open these types of files. You can install a free copy of Adobe Reader from the Adobe Web site at

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.

Rep Number : TSR54 Mailout Attachment Name : FACTSHEET47.PDF (see attachment )

*********************************

From: FCC Fact Sheet #47;

"Complaints About Broadcast Journalism"

(Transcribed From *.PDF File) rom:FW Background1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) .
TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322)
www. gov/ fcc. cgb .
Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
445 12th St., SW Washington, DC . . .

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) receives numerous consumer complaints about broadcast journalism (television and radio journalism).
Consumers complain that networks, stations, news reporters and/or commentators have given inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, have either failed to cover certain events, or have covered them inadequately.
Some consumers complain that the news has been staged or that news reports overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of events. Other consumers object that broadcasters have announced an illness, accident, or a death of an individual before his or her family has been notified, or have in some way acted inappropriately toward the family.
Consumers also complain to the FCC about the conduct (tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.) of some journalists while reporting or commenting on the news.

What Can the FCC Do?

The FCC is caught in a tug-of-war between two consumer factions: on one side, consumers have urged the FCC to set guidelines to prevent bias or distortion by networks and station licensees or to supervise the gathering, editing and airing of news and comments; on the other side, consumers fear possible government intimidation or censorship of broadcast news operations.
The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, except when that material is obscene. Specifically, federal law does prohibit or limit obscene, indecent or profane language, but the FCC must be guided by decisions of the courts in determining whether specific material may be prohibited under this law. Additionally, the Communications Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibit any action by the FCC that would interfere with free speech in broadcasting. The FCC can not interfere with a broadcaster’s selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary.

What if I Have Comments and What Are the Broadcasters’ Responsibilities?

As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public. The FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”
The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting.
This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene.

Comments or Concerns about a Specific News Broadcast or Commentary?

All concerns and/or comments about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed, in writing, to the local station and network involved, so that the people responsible for making the programming decisions can become better informed about audience opinion.

Complaints regarding news distortion, rigging or slanting can be filed with the:

Federal Communications Commission,
Enforcement Bureau,
Investigations and Hearing Division,
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

Complaints must be in writing and contain documented evidence in support of the allegations.
For example, it is not sufficient for a complaint to allege only that a broadcast station made a mistake in reporting a news event. The complaint must include documented evidence showing deliberate misrepresentation.

###

To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through The Commission’s electronic subscriber service, click on:

www.fcc.gov/cgb/emailservice.html. 010910

**********************

So; What do we have in the way of "Documented Evidence", here? Didn't someone (Goldburg?) write a book about the history of CBS's chronic bias? Do I have to mail the FCC a copy of the book?

What kind of "documentation" of the recent GWB/TANG Forgery attempt would suffice, do you think?

I'd be glad to print and mail a copy of my letter (re. #167 this thread) if I knew what appropriate "documentation" to submit along with it.

Open to suggestions here!

Your Fellow Pajamarazzi {8^{D~
UJ

[Uncle Jaque]

Re. your #222:

" Robin Rather looks just like her father."

Well, sorta, now that you mention it...

Just not QUITE as ugly, eh?

I wonder if she shares any of his other "issues"?

[Howie Carr sound effect; "*POP*... ga-chug,gachug,galloop; splash; fizz..."] };^{P~

[Happy2BMe]

(PARTIAL) FCC RESPONSE TO CBS COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY UNCLE JAQUE:

_______________________________

"What if I Have Comments and What Are the Broadcasters’ Responsibilities?

As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public.

The FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”

The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting.

This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news.

In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene."

_______________________________

What Uncle Jaque got back is a "canned response" from the FCC in his complaint on how CBS is knowingly and willfully distorting news in the public domain (e.g., "intentional lying to the public to sway popular opinion against President Bush).

What they are saying is that unless and "INSIDER" from WITHIN CBS comes forward with verifiable evidence that CBS has willfully and intentionally broadcast FALSE information to the public, then the FCC will not intervene

Anybody know anyone working "inside" CBS?

What will likely happen is a civil lawsuit claiming CBS slandered Lt. Col. Killian and will likely be brought by his next of kin. And if and when that occurs, I seriously doubt the case will be settled out of court.

This is for certain: The FCC will not act unless charges are brought forth by someone inside of CBS.

The downside of all of this is that only civil tort action is left and even if it were implemented today, it wouldn't even go to court until next year.

Barring some unforeseen congressional investigation (and those things take months to even show the first signs of life) - nothing will occur from this communist attempt to sway yet another national (presidential) election.

[MeekOneGOP]

Dan Ra^ther bump !!

[Uncle Jaque]

Yup; I think you've pretty much got it summed up there.

As usual, the liberal elite's bubble of impunity in which reside the likes of the KLINTOONS, AlGORE, Spandex BURGLAR (AKA "Pantload" Burger) et. al. remains essentially impenetrable.

Hanoi KERRY may not manage to steal this election (He sure ain't gonna win it square), but we need not hold our breath for him to ever be held accountable for his treason.

One "Law" for the Sheeple; another for the liberal socialist Big Shots in Washington.

Thus it ever has been, it seems; and thus it is ever likely to be.

That's not to say, of course, that we can't annoy, irritate, and offend the uppity 8@$tard$ a little from time to time...

Ever seen a pack of P.O'd and determined little sparrows chasing a big ol' crow around the sky?

As far as "Civil action" is concerned, has the term "Class Action" ever occured to anyone?

Any Kleagal types out there care to comment?
(Hmmm - maybe I should address them as "PajaLegals"; Lawyers in Pajammas?) };^{)~

UJ

[MeekOneGOP]

(Hmmm - maybe I should address them as "PajaLegals"; Lawyers in Pajammas?) };^{)~

LOL!

[Happy2BMe]

Did you do that on a 1973 IBM SELECTRIC TYPEWRITER!?

[MeekOneGOP]

LOL! Nah! The IBM Selectric "Composer" costs too much.

I just did it with my handy dandy SUPer HTML code! :^D

< SUP > < /SUP >

[Uncle Jaque]

I'm thinking about something along the lines of "VietNam Veterans vs. RATHER"... Just insert the appropriate "aggreived group" in front of "vs." and away you go.

Heck; Komrade Danny's got pretty deep pockets; surely some enterprising PajaLegal out there might consider it on contingency just for hoots & giggles.

Or so we can hope.

Liberals sure don't mind whipping their enemies with the judicial / tort system; let 'em taste a little of their own medicine for a change, eh?

Look at it this way; RATHER attacked our President;
When you attack our President, you attack US!

So as a Republican, I'm feeling pretty aggreived here - you?

Want "redress"?

Calling all PajaLegals!!!

[potlatch]

One "Law" for the Sheeple; another for the liberal socialist Big Shots in Washington.

THE SHEEPLE