[xzins]

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.

[Hank Rearden]

What do you expect from McPaper?

[Always Right]

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.

[dc-zoo]

Plus USA Today had six documents. How did they end up with six documents and where did they get them?

[Don Simmons]

No surprise in hearing this about that pinko rag!

[PA Engineer]

It gets worse.

From rightmarch.com today.

USA Today PULLS Our Dan Rather Ad!

ALERT: Our ad demanding accountability from Dan Rather and CBS News was scheduled to be published today (9/22/04), NATIONWIDE, in USA Today...

But you won't see it there.

We just received word that they PULLED our ad.

You read that right. At the last minute, we got a call that USA Today would NOT run our ad. We've run THREE hard-hitting full-page nationwide ads with them before, so we were caught off-guard by their rejection.

Everything we've heard so far is "hearsay" -- they haven't put anything in writing. At first, we were told that their legal department had nixed it. Maybe that's not surprising, since USA Today had been given the same forged documents that CBS News had gotten, and had run the same story to begin with.

But then, the "official" story came down that they would only run "political" ads if the advertising group paid FULL RATE CARD prices on the ad. That means paying MUCH higher rates than anything we've paid in the past (most advertisers get discounts off of the "rate card").

We think that's just a smokescreen for the truth -- that their legal eagles are SCARED of the ad we want to run, so they pulled it.

But they're not going to be able to stop us.

[Grampa Dave]

Another prime example of USALIESTODAY:

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.

[OldFriend]

No one expects real news in USA Today!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

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.

[CDB]

We all know what you mean, but avoid the "heads should roll" metaphor.

[Mo1]

Betcha the USA Today has been holding their breath hoping no one would notice they were in on the forged documents also

[F16Fighter]

The puppet-strings (or octopus tentacles) extend far and wide...

What "media collusion"??