Posted on 09/10/2004 2:59:34 PM PDT by vajimbo
The DC ABC radio affiliate (WMAL) just aired on their 5:30 PM news, that (paraphrasing) there may be a problem with the 60 Minutes documents, and that it was the Washington Post that "dug in" and analyzed the docs determining they were probably not authentic.
So is this the MSM's strategy to save face? Throw CBS under the bus and try to gain back some credibility by claiming that they did the research (and implying they would have exposed the forgeries even if Freepers didn't really break the story).
May want to Freep WMAL to get them to change their spin. (http://www.wmal.com)
I don't care of WashPost wants to take credit. Dan Blather needs to own up to the fact that he has used fraudulent documents to impune the President of the United States.
Let them lie and eat their own.
It defeats the argument that it came from a biased source and cannot be trusted.
Well, if they just actually THROW CBS under the bus, I'd take the diss.
The Powerline blog did the research, or at least that was my impression. I've been gone all week, so I'm trying to catch up with this story.
It doesn't bother me to see the MSM lining up against CBS and Dan Rather. I'm glad they agree the memos are bogus, even if they're willing to lie about who was first to prove it.
I will also echo the statement that I too don't care who pulls down CBS at this point and if it takes talking heads from one network to get the information in front of the public, then so be it. Eventually the truth will get out......if the coverup is not swept under the rug by CBS.
>>>The Powerline blog did the research, or at least that was my impression. I've been gone all week, so I'm trying to catch up with this story.
Powerline got their tips from people poining them to something called FreeRepublic...
Wonder what the estimable Buckhead will have to say about this crock...
This may be an unpopular view, but I have to give the Post some credit for breaking this story. When the FReepers did the legwork on this story, there were some who said "why bother, the MSM will never cover it." I would have cast my vote that the MSM would NEVER cover it. Even considering that the Post wanted to slam a competitor, usually ideology trumps ALL---including competition, professionalism, personal animosity, etc.
Who cares.
I mean, I would say that organizations such as the Washington Post and ABC News actually brought in credible experts to verify, which is a little different than people on the internet pointing out irregularities.
What is important is that we are not alone in this fight, and Dan Rather and CBS News will not be able to stonewall this. If it was just us and bloggers taking them on, then the forgers would never be held to account.
So let the Washington Post claim the credit. All that matters is that this story is pursued to its ultimate end and a malicious hoax is not pulled on America.
FReepers did the exposure. Within one hour, there had been clear indications broadcast on FR that these documents were forgeries, and from then on it was off to the races.
Look around a bit on FR, and you will see that the NY Post has given FR the initial credit.
Wrong. Go take a look at the threads. FReepers had essentially brought up all the major problems that indicated the forgeries within a few hours of the FRAUDcast.
/
The WaPost deserves some credit for putting this story on Page 1, interviewing Killian's son, and getting an expert to evaluate the documents.
I think the some of the leftist networks are figuring out that this lying liberal horse$%#^ is a real big problem for what credibility is left in the Marxstream media. (love that term, its so appropriate).
Give credit where credit is due, but hang Rather and his ilk, big time.
I agree..We are mad when they DON"T pursue the truth of a story...Let's give them credit for publishing and pursuing this...
So what if they don't give FR credit, so they want to go after NYT fishwrap...at this point I am grateful for any TRUTH in MSM that is fair to Bush..no matter what the motive.
Someone at the WaPo read it on DU or the FreeRepublic. Then they decided it was news.
By definition it's not news until they say it is so, QED, they discovered it in their research.
At least that's how they see it. Afterall, no one actually reads the internet for news, right?
This is GREAT news! Who cares who gets the credit?! We'll know who got the ball rolling.
'Throw CBS under the bus'...I like that.
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.