CBS with more egg on it's face?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Pretty serious charge to level at CBS (CAD's childish capitalization aside), but please, let's take a step back here. All we have is Ken Starr's word for it. Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that he was telling the truth when it meant that CBS had essentially lied in one of their segments. I realize those of you who think Fox News is the new paradigm of journalistic integrity don't think too much of CBS, and to be honest I have my doubts as well. Which is all the more reason that CBS wouldn't try something so obvious and stupid, especially when it results in nothing better than a sound bite from Ken Starr.

Could CBS be that dumb and that biased that they would out and out lie about what Starr said, when they knew they would be caught? Maybe, but remember the rule about conspiracies. When there is a simpler explanation, that explanation is probably right. The simpler explanation? That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it.

Have you watched the clip? Read the email from Starr? Nah, it's a conspiracy...:roll:

CsG

 

[Gaard]

"That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it" = conspiracy?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
"That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it" = conspiracy?

No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
"That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it" = conspiracy?

No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Yeah, I get that. I was just wondering what you meant when you insinuated that what Rainsford said was a conspiracy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
"That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it" = conspiracy?

No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Yeah, I get that. I was just wondering what you meant when you insinuated that what Rainsford said was a conspiracy.

Maybe, but remember the rule about conspiracies

-Rainsford

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Again, the "altered" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So with the altered part only being alleged - what misconduct is there? None? If there is none, then what is the deal? Just an excuse to whine about the media? Figures.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow. Both Ken Starr and Gonzales both back-peddling and clarifying their original quotes to be more "pro-Bush" this week. Who'da thunk it?!?

You ever think that's because the people reporting these quotes are misrepresenting them and/or taking them out of context? Nah....

CsG

In your opinion. So it's a they said/he said thing.

*shrug*

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Again, the "altered" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So with the altered part only being alleged - what misconduct is there? None? If there is none, then what is the deal? Just an excuse to whine about the media? Figures.

Whoa! Deja Vu!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
"That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it" = conspiracy?

No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Yeah, I get that. I was just wondering what you meant when you insinuated that what Rainsford said was a conspiracy.

Maybe, but remember the rule about conspiracies

-Rainsford

CsG

Er, I was suggesting that the idea that the media (CBS in this case) is spinning the story and/or lying to support the left sounds like a conspiracy. It's complex and requires a ton of players in power. It's not "my" conspiracy, I'm saying I think you (and others) think CBS is part of a conspiracy. Then I pointed out that most conspiracies are silly because there is often a much simpler explanation. In this case, Starr (all by himself) is simply full of it.

To sum up here, I think the chances are greater that Starr is full of it than CBS being full of it. Mostly because the CBS explanation sounds like a conspiracy, while the Starr explanation simply requires someone saying something he later regretted and trying to blame it on the media, something that happens quite often.

I really don't know what happened here, but it seems clear to me that CBS would have a lot to lose doing something so obvious. CBS already has egg on its face, for something a lot more "subtle", it makes no sense that they would risk looking even worse over such an obvious trick, all to make it look like Ken Starr didn't support the Republicans on the issue.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Pretty serious charge to level at CBS (CAD's childish capitalization aside), but please, let's take a step back here. All we have is Ken Starr's word for it. Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that he was telling the truth when it meant that CBS had essentially lied in one of their segments. I realize those of you who think Fox News is the new paradigm of journalistic integrity don't think too much of CBS, and to be honest I have my doubts as well. Which is all the more reason that CBS wouldn't try something so obvious and stupid, especially when it results in nothing better than a sound bite from Ken Starr.

Could CBS be that dumb and that biased that they would out and out lie about what Starr said, when they knew they would be caught? Maybe, but remember the rule about conspiracies. When there is a simpler explanation, that explanation is probably right. The simpler explanation? That Starr shot his mouth off and then thought better of it.

Have you watched the clip? Read the email from Starr? Nah, it's a conspiracy...:roll:

CsG

Actually I did both. And read my previous post about conspiracies (I DON'T think ANYONE was engaged in a conspiracy).

Seriously, does this make sense from CBS's point of view? They out and out lie about what Starr said, knowing he'd call them on it, just so they could make it look like Starr supported the Democrats. Even if they were liberally biased, it seems like they could find a better ploy than that.

I'm not taking sides here so much as pointing out that the explanation from the anti-CBS people makes no sense, while (to me) the idea that Starr is just full of it makes a lot more sense.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Again, the "altered" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So with the altered part only being alleged - what misconduct is there? None? If there is none, then what is the deal? Just an excuse to whine about the media? Figures.

Whoa! Deja Vu!

 

[piasabird]

Maybe Dan Rather was working on that?

Is it news or an opinion peice?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Again, the "altered" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So with the altered part only being alleged - what misconduct is there? None? If there is none, then what is the deal? Just an excuse to whine about the media? Figures.

Actually, it is on tape. A tape it seems cBS doesn't want to release in full. So when we have video of a person making a statement but without hearing the question preceding nor the other context - it is most certainly taking it out of context. Sure the "journalist" tried to provide the context but Starr has refuted that.

Lets have a look at that tape cBS...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Again, the "altered" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So with the altered part only being alleged - what misconduct is there? None? If there is none, then what is the deal? Just an excuse to whine about the media? Figures.

Whoa! Deja Vu!

Actually the two situations are not comparable unless there is tape of the alleged "forced" sex. So again, that case is alleged - and this case can be proven.... IF cBS releases the full tape of the interview.

I'm putting my money on cBS not releasing the full tape...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

There is only one way to find out. Release the tape. However since Starr knows that his whole interview is on tape - his statements regarding them are believable. Ofcourse you and your types won't believe him but what's new...

CsG

Excuse me while I don't believe someone hellbent on a specific agenda.

And his "agenda" would be?

CsG

 

[conjur]

Anything to make the GOP look good and the Democrats look bad.


Duh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Anything to make the GOP look good and the Democrats look bad.


Duh.

The democrats sure loved him during the Packwood "scandal". Heck kerry even called him neutral or something like that.
Hmm...

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BUSHsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BUSHsortaGUY
No. Starr was interviewed and his statements were given an altered meaning by the commentary provided by the cBS "journalist" and with the edited clip.

CsG

Again, the "altered" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So with the altered part only being alleged - what misconduct is there? None? If there is none, then what is the deal? Just an excuse to whine about the media? Figures.

Whoa! Deja Vu!

Actually the two situations are not comparable unless there is tape of the alleged "forced" sex. So again, that case is alleged - and this case can be proven.... IF cBS releases the full tape of the interview.

I'm putting my money on cBS not releasing the full tape...

CsG

ROFL!! Say what you want about BSg; he is predictable.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Lets have a look at that tape cBS...

CsG

Let's hear which administration official outted the CIA covert agent, Novak!

Oh wait...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Lets have a look at that tape cBS...

CsG

Let's hear which administration official outted the CIA covert agent, Novak!

Oh wait...

Outing a supposed source is much different than releasing a full interview tape, but I'm sure you already knew that when you posted your "duhversion" attempt.

CsG