Posted on 09/20/2004 8:54:24 AM PDT by TheGeezer
Edited on 09/20/2004 9:07:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Update by moderator:
EXCLUSIVE
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
In Neal Boortz column today, he makes this excellent point:
So .. now CBS is the victim? After two weeks of drinking their own Kool-Aid...insisting that the documents were accurate, and trotting out experts who supported their claims, suddenly CBS is the victim here? CBS wasn't duped - their viewers were. The documents were obvious forgeries, and CBS ignored the warnings from their own experts that they didn't look authentic. In other words, they're acting like they accepted a $100 bill drawn with a green crayon and were deceived. We're going to buy that, aren't we?
Who is culpable for attempting to pass crayon-based journalistic currency? Only the juvenile who thought he could get away with it? Or the "responsible adults" who had the sheer audacity to pass it off to the public clerk & the United Bloggerists of America thinking we wouldn't notice.
The daily insults upon our intelligence grow each day. Now, I'm beginning to understand a bit more how God feels when we keep trying to cover up our own sinful shenanigans, as if we wasn't omniscient and as if he wasn't in our 24/7 presence. Just as that is so offensive to Him, so is CBS' docudrama...the implementation of pure, reality tragedy as a new form of reality TV.
Chairman Michael K. Powell: Michael.Powell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Only if all of the statutory elements that comprise the crime have been met, and the defendant has no defense. At this point, I think there has been no crime in the forgery of the Killian documents, nor is there a crime in CBS airing them as authentic.
The question of whether or not a crime has been committed has been discussed at some length. I have not been involved in all of those discussions, but did spend some time researching just to be up to speed for "when" the indictment came down.
The fields of criminal and election law are far afield from my expertise, and I am certainly open to persuasion that there IS an applicable criminal statute. But I'd like to be given a citation to a statute or case law to bolster the assertion that a crime has been committed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1216465/posts?page=133#133 <-- read from #133
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1217992/posts?page=55#55 <-- Nos. 55,72,101,113
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218457/posts <-- See #6 (by ScottFromSpokane)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219685/posts?page=37#37 <--
Given that the press demanded the president apologize for misleading the country about yellowcake uranium in his State of the Union address (and the information turned out to be TRUE), shouldn't we be demanding that Rather apologize to the president?
CBS tried to mislead the nation.
And I notice they aren't trying too hard to find out exactly where these documents came from. Maybe someone should point out to them they should practice what they preach.
This half-assed "statement" is no apology whatsoever. There is zero contrition expressed in that "statement".
They clearly imply that if they had it to do over again...they wouldn't have shown the documents...just said they had them.
Here's hoping some Viacom exec grabs the sword that Dan Rather should have fallen on....and eviscerates the whole news room. There needs to be a major bloodletting over there.
When I graduated from Highschool, I sent an invitation to Max Cleland. He didn't come, but sent me a nice letter of congratulations, and a little gift. My mom had worked for him to try to get him elected to congress in 1976, and, we went to visit him in Washington, 1977 as head the the Veterans Administration. (He lived in the Watergate appartments) I thought him an honorable man then. I even have a copy of his book that he wrote, signed.
After the events of the impeachment, and now with Kerry/Rathergate, I had thought about just packing up the book, gift, and letter, and mailing it all back to him with a note pointing out how he had sullied his honor and was no longer the man I had respected in the 1970s.
Now I think I will keep these items. Who knows, they might be valuable one day. Like property of Hitler or Al Capone, there are always collectors looking for something.
---CBS said Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, had provided the documents. In a press release accompanying Heyward's statement, CBS said that Burkett "also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."---
Very interesting, given CBS's claim of an unimpeachable source. We're supposed to believe that Burkett said he got them from some other guard person and that that was the unimpeachable source? They're going to have to run this through the laundry a few more times. It still smells to high heaven.
Cite please. See #563 above.
"...I got my "assault" cammy jammys on. Lock and load!..."
This is soooo cute!!!! I am laughing so hard!
I know you surely didn't intend making such a "funny"!
But you did!!!
And I am locked and loaded for bear!
Ben Barnes said 4 years ago, under oath, he didn't get GWB into the NG and then changed his story.
Being under oath doesn't mean much to these people, I guess. It's sad.
Provided = had on hand to give them.
Anyone catch this? DU post says, "Statement just read on MSNBC from WH said that Burkett met with high level Kerry campaign people..."
Game on.
on MSNBC:
"CBS didn't do due diligence", Robert Thompson of Syracuse University says, and "CBS waited so long to respond". Thompson says he doesn't think this was a case of ideology, just CBS wanting to get a scoop.
Aly Colon of The Poynter Institute, says it's important to admit wrongdoing. The verification voice must be heard in covering stories like these. Ethics is Colon's specialty, and he says it's difficult to get "other voices" . BS BS BS! (CBS heard other voices, ignored them, and didn't tell viewers about them.)
I really agree. The people at CBS are supposedly the news experts. Here they are, professing that they don't know what makes water boil.
Translation: It slowly began to sink in that the public wasn't as stupid as we thought they were, and we began the cover up.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
Translation: We lied and lied and lied, and still no one bought it.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Translation: We had faith in our ability to manipulate the public and influence an election. After all, we've done it before, and gotten away with it.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Please know there is nothing more important to us than our ratings.
Which ever ... is THIS the best they could come up with?
A FRAUD?
LOL!
They still pushing the content on Kerry's website? As of last night they still were.
But the story is true, just the memos aren't. /sarcasm
CBS hasn't really changed their story in the last week.
Bingo. Just like common criminals are only "sorry" they got caught. Rather is a criminal.
What's your inmate number Kenneth? ;)
Obviously this is spin to decouple Rather from Burkett's source that CBS claims to know but cannot "confirm".
CBS Bull$hat at the speed of light
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.