Posted on 09/24/2004 1:02:15 PM PDT by FlyLow
CBS News and Dan Rather have been taking a beating over the use of the forged documents, but USA Today has a lot to explain and heads should roll there, too. It also received and publicized the phony documents from Bill Burkett, assuming they were authentic. It used Burkett as a confidential source and its standards for "verifying" the documents turn out to be even worse than those of CBS News!
On September 9, one day after the 60 Minutes story aired, USA Today was out with its own story under the headline, "Guard commander's memos criticize Bush," by Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard.
The story was based on "newly disclosed documents," the paper claimed. It said "the memos" were "obtained by USA Today and also reported Wednesday on the CBS program 60 Minutes…" The paper went on to say that White House communications director Dan Bartlett "did not dispute the documents' authenticity."
So USA Today expected the White House to do the job of verifying or debunking the documents. This was a critical mistake also made by CBS news. Obviously, the White House did not have enough time to do that. And it's not the administration's job to research stories for the Big Media. The White House took the defensible position that it was assuming the documents were valid because they had been supplied by a "reputable" news organization. The White House didn't think Dan Rather would sink so low as to pawn off phony documents as legitimate.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
This is true, and it has flown under the radar screen.
They also accepted forgeries without proper vetting while ignoring exculpatory evidence.
Their error was no less egregious.
What do you expect from McPaper?
They will skate just because they did not break the story. No one really expects investigative journalism from USA Today, and since 60 Minutes already aired the story, they figured they were covered. They deserve to be hit with this, but Rather is a mega-lightning rod.
Plus USA Today had six documents. How did they end up with six documents and where did they get them?
Well before the internet, they did have the best national sports page. The best place to get timely stats and info on all the major sports teams. Now, I don't see the point.
USA Today has been a sham for a very long time. It makes great liner for the bird cage.
No surprise in hearing this about that pinko rag!
Plus USA Today had six documents. How did they end up with six documents and where did they get them?
On September 9, one day after the 60 Minutes story aired, USA Today was out with its own story under the headline, "Guard commander's memos criticize Bush," by Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard.
The story was based on "newly disclosed documents," the paper claimed. It said "the memos" were "obtained by USA Today and also reported Wednesday on the CBS program 60 Minutes…" The paper went on to say that White House communications director Dan Bartlett "did not dispute the documents' authenticity."
Whenever a conservative checks in at a hotel/motel tell them that you don't want the so called free copy of USALIESTODAY. Then demand that they take off the built in $ charge for the so called free copy. Most clerks will just smile and deduct a $ from your room charge. Those newspapers are not free.
...it's also "free" at most hotels, and if you're in a place that you can't get any real news (like France) and the cable TV translator walks all over CNN sound (in French) and TWA Flight 800 happens to explode over Long Island and you're in France trying to figure out what actually happened, it might be useful. (As it was for us in France in July, 1996.)
..otherwise, it's just a large-sized comic-book printed on cheap paper. I don't usually bother to pick it up from in front of the hotel room door.
No one expects real news in USA Today!
USA Today is not a newspaper. When ever I travel, I always instruct the hotel clerk to not deliver a USA Today to my room and to deduct the cost of the paper from my bill.
Great idea in theory,,but I've always seen it as complimentary (another poster actually mentioned this first). Have you actually gotten a deduction from your bill? If that works, it's a great concept.
We all know what you mean, but avoid the "heads should roll" metaphor.
Not under my radar. Glad this was written up. Obviously you mean the MSM at this point ignores USA Today and their role in this scandal.
We can hope as Thornburgh and his partner do their investigaion, which should include a talk with Burkett, they can find out everybody he spoke to and how antsy they were to dash to the front of the line with what they thought would be detrimental to GWB.
Yes, I mean the MSM + those who have attention focused primarily on cBS.
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.
