Posted on 01/10/2005 2:01:18 PM PST by atomopawn
They also said it was "inappropriate" for Mapes to
have helped Burkett get in contact with Joe Lockhart, a
political adviser to Democrat John Kerry (news - web
sites), in the midst of the presidential campaign. But
Boccardi said that to conclude CBS was guilty of
anti-Bush bias would be to make the same mistake "60
Minutes Wednesday" made — drawing a conclusion
without enough evidence.
A little later:
As a result of Monday's report, CBS News said it
had appointed one of its executives, Linda Mason, to a
newly created job of senior vice president of standards
and special projects, charged with thoroughly reviewing
investigative stories before they air.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Her husband's campaign contributions
Biased, perhaps?
-----to conclude CBS was guilty of
anti-Bush bias would be to make the same mistake "60
Minutes Wednesday" made — drawing a conclusion
without enough evidence. -----
No.. CBS's failure was not in *drawing a conclusion without enough evidence*, it was *REPORTING IT*.
We can conclude whatever we want. People can speculate, discuss, opine, editorialize, and whatever else we want without making the mistake CBS made.
When we start reporting on prime TV, facts which are not proven, then -and only then- can they say we are making the same mistake they did.
Plus, the FCC and the federal election commission should fine CBS into oblivion
Until they issue an on air apology and fire Dan Rather, they have done nothing.
CBS didn't come to a conclusion with insufficient evidence. They came to a conclusion with FORGED evidence, and there's no way they could not have known it was a forgery.
Mary Mapes worked with these National Guard documents for FIVE YEARS, yet she didn't notice any differences? Nobody noticed any differences? When you've been dealing with standard IBM Courier typeface documents and you pick up a document in Times New Roman, that's the very first thing you would notice. No way you wouldn't notice.
Their experts all refused to confirm the authenticity of the documents (although they lied about this for weeks), their staffers were said to have warned Rather that the documents were fishy, and once the story broke it was clear to the dullest eye that the documents were FORGED.
Yet they went ahead with it.
And then refused to face up and admit it -- or apologize for it in any sincere and honest manner.
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.