Posted on 01/10/2005 8:57:57 AM PST by FreeTheHostages
Check out the actual investigatory panel report -- it credits Free Republic (accurately) for first questioning the authenticity of thye documents. The actual investigatory report can be seen
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't know but I doubt it -- they were cited for starting to get the ball rolling.
In fact, it would be -- ironically -- unnecessary to interview them because UNLIKE CBS their account of what was happening was:
transparent, with the sources obvious to the reader;
supported by the documents and known facts;
well-reasoned.
So you could find all you needed to know to make your own judgment on FR. Or one could just let CBS do one's thinking for one. [Insert evil laugh here.]
"Attacks...mostly by bloggers with a conservative agenda"
Glass is half empty: seems that there is bias in the wording of the report.
If "conservatives" hadn't "attacked" the memos
the American public would have believed the report and forgeries.
Howlin rocks!
Interesting how the panel can simply assert the "conservative" agenda of the bloggers. BUT, after 3 months of investigation, they are unable to devine any political agenda on the part of CBS.
Have a look around HERE.
Or
hey.. I forgot I started the thread. part of history! whoo!
You know, I don't think so. I think this is subtly friendly language.
We were *definitely* attacking the veracity of CBS's report. So the word "attack" is fine there.
And to say "with a conservative agenda" -- hmm, I'm not a fan of "agenda" but I will say this -- the point of that sentence is that perhaps you'd not have to be within the gates of liberal GROUPTHINK in order to see the truth.
I guess I don't know how the author's meant it, but I don't percieve bias there. It's quite accurate. We admit we have a conservative agenda. (CBS employees -- humorously! -- still deny one was at work in this latest run of Rathergate.)
I like diversity of thought too -- I really believe that if you get different people with different perspectives in the room, you're more likely to get the truth of something. I trust juries, generally, for example. If liberals, who SAY they like diversity, would just take a page from their playbook and actually put political diversity in their news rooms and executive producer positions, maybe suddenly new thoughts would occur in these newsrooms. Maybe CBS needs some "conservative agenda" people to offset their "liberal agenda" people.
But I'm all for calling something what it is. This site has a conservative "agenda" in only the same sense that CBS has a liberal "agenda."
Agenda on.
They're just being lawyers. What they say is that they were unable to *prove* it just based on these facts.
I've no doubt they suspect it.
I actually think it's GOOD for us that CBS et al continue to insist that a liberal agenda was not at work here. It's so humorously untrue (even if not provable in a court of law). It just serves as further caution to the public at large about trusting that man of Courage, the Ratherman.
Fallout from CBS report
Jan. 10: The report places most of the blame on a producer of a story on President Bush's National Guard service for presenting "half truths as facts," NBC's Lisa Myers reports.
MSNBC
Poor Lisa - she doesn't know a HALF TRUTH FROM A LIE
Still trying to prop up her buddies at CBS
(POSTED IN ERROR TO ANOTHER DUPLICATE THREAD)
No sale. I can assume it, RW, - and I do. In fact, I assume that everyone I come into contact with has an agenda of one sort or another. The burden of proof is on any contrary assertion.Besides, it is easy to prove that CBS acted with a political motivation. You need only conduct a thought experiment:
The issue is not the service of the Repulican but of the Democratic presidential candidate. A plastic-bananna set of "memos" comes to the CBS office which are not originals but all-but-illegible nth-generation copies which cannot, in the nature of things, be verified by document experts. Would CBS have lifted a finger to show those documents the light of day?Refusing to decide a question when you have all the information you need is just as much a bias as deciding a question wrongly when you know better.The treatment of the SBVT answers that question!
They're scared of the Bush Administration. Bush is doing things under the radar screen... and it scares to hell out of 'em. ;o)
As my favorite president once said,
"There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
Ronald Reagan
Wow, thanks for the post!
GASP, that's just AMAZING that NBC could spin such a report in that way.
Half-truths? What's the truth? That Dan Rather's name is Dan Rather?
Have they issued the apology to the White House yet?
FROM THE REPORT: "The Panel is aware that some have ascribed political motivations to 60 Minutes
Wednesday’s decision to air the September 8 Segment just two months before the presidential
election, while others further found political bias in the program itself. The Panel reviewed this
issue and found certain actions that could support such charges. "
Sounds to me like the panel both believed there COULD have been political motivations, BUT asserted there were NOT motivations. Sounds to me like the panel is confused as to what it thinks about CBS' political motivations.
Freepmail
I think the firings count.
Frankly, if I were the head of CBS news, I'd be livid that I told (after the first criticism came in) the Executive Producer (Howard) to take his own independent look at what the document experts said and then later find out he just ignored my request.
That alone is fire-able. Sheesh. President of CBS News tells you to do something like double-check your story, and you work there, then well you do it.
The real news here is that this team actually spent the time they were under fire (by us) trying to find other document experts that would agree with them!! Wowwwww.
Readers Tom Mortensen and Liz MacDougald direct us to the FreeRepublic post and thread (see post no. 47) to this effect:The blog entry goes on to quote from Buckhead's post.
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.