Dan Rather slams the media
Tomdarch wrote : "Overall the report was accurate, but Rather made the mistake of standing by some documents that were provided to him that turned out to be forged."
Jesus Christ. Tom dusts off the old "fake but accurate" defense of Rather's attempt to swing the election with made up "journalism". The whole fucking story was based on a collection of Microsoft Word documents, of unknown origin, that were being passed off as internal military memos, and the product of 1970s era typewriters. These "memos" are proven fakes. Still, the numbnuts insist they are "true".
Jesus Christ. Tom dusts off the old "fake but accurate" defense of Rather's attempt to swing the election with made up "journalism". The whole fucking story was based on a collection of Microsoft Word documents, of unknown origin, that were being passed off as internal military memos, and the product of 1970s era typewriters. These "memos" are proven fakes. Still, the numbnuts insist they are "true".
Last edited by L Day on Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Larry I know that your not a troll, but I'm thoroughly convinced that your just stirring shit up with your political points of view. I mean how can you be that stupid. It's like being a lawyer defending Jeffery Dahmer. You know he did it, so why fake the funk. This isn't an argument that I intend to visit again, I just got sick of reading your retarded shit and felt like pointing it out. I seriously hope that your just doing this for fun.L Day wrote:Tomdarch wrote : "Overall the report was accurate, but Rather made the mistake of standing by some documents that were provided to him that turned out to be forged."
Jesus Christ. Tom dusts off the old "fake but accurate" defense of Rather's attempt to swing the election with made up "journalism". The whole fucking story was based on a collection of Microsoft Word documents, of unknown origin, that were being passed off as internal military memos, and the product of 1970s era typewriters. These "memos" are proven fakes, still the numbnuts insist they are "true".
In this matter, you must be the most uninformed motherfucker on earth. You have no idea what you're talking about, yet you attack me personally for pointing out that, without the forged documents, Rather had no story. Are you completely unaware of the facts of this case? CBS made the mistake of posting the alleged military memos on their website. A rough outline of what followed is: A fellow posting under the name of Buckhead thought the typeface looked a little too familiar, so he took a screenshot of the documents and printed them. He then hammered out a quick copy (at the default settings) on Microsoft Word, then printed this copy on clear acetate. Laying the acetate copy over the alleged Memo, he found they were a perfect match. I'm not sure if Buckhead was the same guy who identified the typeface as Times New Roman, a typeface that wasn't even developed until 20 years or so after the alleged memos were supposed to have been typed by an air force secretary. But the typeface was only one small, though damning, detail. There were all kinds of characteristics of the documents that were not in line with 1970s technology, things like proportional spacing,kerning, superscripted "th", etc. The most convincing detail, however, was that all the spacing, tabs, etc. were exactly the same as Microsoft Word, decades before the the program, or the word processor, even existed.
So what are you trying to tell me dumbshit? That CBS knew that Bush must have gotten bad reviews, because he's so stupid and all, but since they had no actual evidence they'd just make up documents to support their case? This is one of the reasons that people are abandoning traditional news sources, because the bastards think we're so stupid that they can lie to us with impunity.
In case you haven't gotten it by now you dumbshit, I'm not defending Bush. Like you, I have no idea if he was a competent pilot and military officer or not. But when CBS pulls a stunt like this it really pisses me off. They lied to us, because they thought the ends justified the means. If you think it's a fucked up political point of view to object to media lies and the media's effort to turn a presidential election with those lies, then that's your problem, asswipe, not mine.
Correction: While Buckhead is the first known poster to have declared the forged documents the fakes that they were, he was not the one who created the devistatingly effective transparent overlay.
So what are you trying to tell me dumbshit? That CBS knew that Bush must have gotten bad reviews, because he's so stupid and all, but since they had no actual evidence they'd just make up documents to support their case? This is one of the reasons that people are abandoning traditional news sources, because the bastards think we're so stupid that they can lie to us with impunity.
In case you haven't gotten it by now you dumbshit, I'm not defending Bush. Like you, I have no idea if he was a competent pilot and military officer or not. But when CBS pulls a stunt like this it really pisses me off. They lied to us, because they thought the ends justified the means. If you think it's a fucked up political point of view to object to media lies and the media's effort to turn a presidential election with those lies, then that's your problem, asswipe, not mine.
Correction: While Buckhead is the first known poster to have declared the forged documents the fakes that they were, he was not the one who created the devistatingly effective transparent overlay.
Last edited by L K Day on Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:19 am, edited 14 times in total.
The Juice wrote: "Larry I know that your not a troll,"
And what gave you that crazy idea?
Just for laughs I thought I'd google the Buckhead story and see how the leftwing blogosphere responded to the debunking of CBS's documents. Seems the best they could come up with was that since Buckhead debunked the documents so quickly, and that since he was a republican, he must have been the original source of said documents, and that he must have planted them for CBS to discover in order to discredit both CBS and Rather. Now that's hilarious. If this was true if would be prove that the networks are even stupider than any of us ever imagined.
Anybody that was paying attention knows that the documents were passed to CBS by Bill Burkett sp?, who is some crazy bastard down in Texas that was pissed off at the military because his disability claim had been denied, and at republicans in general. Apparently Rather and his stupid assed producer wanted so desperately to believe Burkett's shit that they failed to authenticate the forged documents and got burned by their desire to depose Bush.
Even though CBS stonewalled for months, they eventually fired Rather and his nutbag producer Mary Mapes for their egredious conduct in this matter. You think they would have shitcanned a "brand" like Rather if they hadn't been absolutely convinced of his misconduct?
And what gave you that crazy idea?
Just for laughs I thought I'd google the Buckhead story and see how the leftwing blogosphere responded to the debunking of CBS's documents. Seems the best they could come up with was that since Buckhead debunked the documents so quickly, and that since he was a republican, he must have been the original source of said documents, and that he must have planted them for CBS to discover in order to discredit both CBS and Rather. Now that's hilarious. If this was true if would be prove that the networks are even stupider than any of us ever imagined.
Anybody that was paying attention knows that the documents were passed to CBS by Bill Burkett sp?, who is some crazy bastard down in Texas that was pissed off at the military because his disability claim had been denied, and at republicans in general. Apparently Rather and his stupid assed producer wanted so desperately to believe Burkett's shit that they failed to authenticate the forged documents and got burned by their desire to depose Bush.
Even though CBS stonewalled for months, they eventually fired Rather and his nutbag producer Mary Mapes for their egredious conduct in this matter. You think they would have shitcanned a "brand" like Rather if they hadn't been absolutely convinced of his misconduct?
Last edited by L K Day on Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Myke Dronez
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:52 am
When journalists, writers, and documentary filmmakers etc. lie and bend facts in order to advance their idealogical agenda they destroy their credibility for me even if I share their view. It often seems traitorous because the opposition always finds out and uses it as ammunition. I know people are dumb and sometimes need pointed in the right direction but geez- I think its safe to say Bush has dug his own hole without Dan Rather's help.
The only escape is up.
Some of my favorite reading concerning the Subjective Media...... There are Liberal and Conservative biases out there, but it's funny how the shift seems to be so dramatic in the last decade........
In an interview with senior Weekly Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:
“Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually.
Scott McConnell, writing in the paleoconservative magazine The American Conservative, wrote that "f Rupert Murdoch’s purpose was to make things happen in Washington and in the world, he could not have leveraged it better. One could spend 10 times that much on political action committees without achieving anything comparable [to The Weekly Standard]." McConnell describes the Weekly Standard as pushing for war against Iraq and tying Saddam to al Qaeda: "n the first issue the magazine published after 9/11, Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, two employees of Kristol’s PNAC, clarified what ought to be the country’s war aims. Their rhetoric — which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months — was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then to lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al-Qaeda. The first piece was illustrated with a caricature of Saddam, not bin Laden, and the proposed operational plan against bin Laden was astonishingly soft."
Although the publication "loses more than a million dollars a year", Rupert Murdoch, the head of the News Corporation, has dismissed the idea of selling it.