Ex-ABC Consultant Fakes Interviews With Pelosi, Gates, And Others

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Story here.

I'll never understand how these "news" agencies allow this stuff to continue. A few others come to mind, the Reuters photographers and the other newspaper writer who was caught doing the same thing.

Not that ABC had any credentials to begin with - but this kind of shenanigan puts them right down with CBS. Absolutely zero credibility.

EDIT: ABC Reopens Investigation, Wary Of A Reporter

Added new link above for those who say this guy had nothing to do with ABC.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Media has become a business, far more so than it has been in the past. This is a far greater problem than political bias, making money is the only goal...which inevitably leads to a decline in quality since the average consumer isn't very discerning. For the more traditional news outlets like the big 3 and CNN and the big papers, this means fewer in-depth reports, especially about foreign stories, an increased reliance on cheap stories with pretty pictures, and a decrease in the amount of research that goes into ANY stories. For the newer organizations like Fox News (and increasingly, the older media as well), this means catering to specific market segments by replacing news with opinion...and not even particularly good opinion. Bill O'Reilly isn't a substitute for Edward R. Murrow...and neither was Dan Rather, for that matter.

If anyone is really interested in the problems with modern media, as opposed to just looking for a "liberal media" excuse not to listen to things you don't want to hear, read the book "Bad News" by Tom Fenton. It's a great look at the state of modern media and how it got that way, and refreshingly, political bias is mentioned very rarely. It's way better than the Bernard Goldberg whine-fest.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
I agree on the business part. But political bias is a real problem too. Whatever happened to "journalists" who knew how to be professionals. Get the story, report it accurately, and leave their personal opinion and political leanings out of the equation.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Yeah, pretty sad, I agree. Though I find it mildly amusing that you save your indignation for ABC while ignoring several far worse acts of journalist disintegrity committed by Fox News, arguably the saddest excuse for journalism in civilized Western society. And considering ABC is far and away the best news channel out there, this rare event doesn't do much to harm their integrity, which is world renown at this point.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
I agree on the business part. But political bias is a real problem too. Whatever happened to "journalists" who knew how to be professionals. Get the story, report it accurately, and leave their personal opinion and political leanings out of the equation.

I don't really want to jump into the political bias in media debate, but I will say that even if you're right about the extent of the problem, I think the other problems in media dwarf the worst political bias can bring out. Folks in media could certainly color their coverage of a story to suit their political views, but you can't do that too much before it becomes really obvious and stops working. For example, I think the absolutely crummy depth of coverage of the Middle East and Iraq in particular is far worse than whatever political spin might be on the few stories that DO make it out. I'd take Bill O'Reilly reporting on the political situation inside Saudi Arabia over the complete lack of coverage it's getting now. I mean, you seem to have very sensitive "liberal media" radar, so it's obviously not going to fool you...if you can pick it out so clearly, wouldn't you rather get liberally biased coverage than none at all?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Yeah, pretty sad, I agree. Though I find it mildly amusing that you save your indignation for ABC while ignoring several far worse acts of journalist disintegrity committed by Fox News, arguably the saddest excuse for journalism in civilized Western society. And considering ABC is far and away the best news channel out there, this rare event doesn't do much to harm their integrity, which is world renown at this point.

I don't recall Fox News being caught with phony documents, or creating fake interviews.

Mis-labeling a politician as a member of the other party doesn't exactly fall in to the same level as this kind of crap.

Brian Ross is a well-known left-wing extremist. It's no coincidence that he's in charge of ABC's "Investigative" division and that this kind of nonsense happened under his watch.

ABC far and away the best news channel? To each their own...
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't really want to jump into the political bias in media debate, but I will say that even if you're right about the extent of the problem, I think the other problems in media dwarf the worst political bias can bring out. Folks in media could certainly color their coverage of a story to suit their political views, but you can't do that too much before it becomes really obvious and stops working. For example, I think the absolutely crummy depth of coverage of the Middle East and Iraq in particular is far worse than whatever political spin might be on the few stories that DO make it out. I'd take Bill O'Reilly reporting on the political situation inside Saudi Arabia over the complete lack of coverage it's getting now. I mean, you seem to have very sensitive "liberal media" radar, so it's obviously not going to fool you...if you can pick it out so clearly, wouldn't you rather get liberally biased coverage than none at all?

Yeah, but the difference here is that O'Reilly, for example, is not a journalist. He's a commentator. Paid to give his opinion. The folks that are being caught up in these media scandals are almost always anchors, journalists, et al whose job is to report news, not opinion.

I don't think it is a stretch to say that ALL media has sunk credibility-wise. Doesn't matter what network or newspaper, they've all fallen from the ranks. Some further than others...
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Media has become a business, far more so than it has been in the past. This is a far greater problem than political bias, making money is the only goal...which inevitably leads to a decline in quality since the average consumer isn't very discerning. For the more traditional news outlets like the big 3 and CNN and the big papers, this means fewer in-depth reports, especially about foreign stories, an increased reliance on cheap stories with pretty pictures, and a decrease in the amount of research that goes into ANY stories. For the newer organizations like Fox News (and increasingly, the older media as well), this means catering to specific market segments by replacing news with opinion...and not even particularly good opinion. Bill O'Reilly isn't a substitute for Edward R. Murrow...and neither was Dan Rather, for that matter.

If anyone is really interested in the problems with modern media, as opposed to just looking for a "liberal media" excuse not to listen to things you don't want to hear, read the book "Bad News" by Tom Fenton. It's a great look at the state of modern media and how it got that way, and refreshingly, political bias is mentioned very rarely. It's way better than the Bernard Goldberg whine-fest.

I agree. Since the media managed to tear down Nixon, it seems they have finally realized the true power they wield in this country, and they have no shame in using it to nudge the electorate in one direction or another. The media in this country holds more power over the electorate than any political entity, and they are accountable to noone. The problem is that there is no way to fix it. The media is just another example of the breakdown of any kind of moral or social responsibility in this country. The almighty dollar now takes precedence over everything.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

I'll never understand how these "news" agencies allow this stuff to continue. A few others come to mind, the Reuters photographers and the other newspaper writer who was caught doing the same thing.

Not that ABC had any credentials to begin with - but this kind of shenanigan puts them right down with CBS. Absolutely zero credibility.

EDIT: Was this guy an AP writer also?

"former ABC News consultant fired last year "

Your summary is a lie. He was not part of the mainstream media. You have absolutely zero credibility.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Yeah, pretty sad, I agree. Though I find it mildly amusing that you save your indignation for ABC while ignoring several far worse acts of journalist disintegrity committed by Fox News, arguably the saddest excuse for journalism in civilized Western society. And considering ABC is far and away the best news channel out there, this rare event doesn't do much to harm their integrity, which is world renown at this point.

Got to love it. Divert from the topic to take a shot at Fox.

Were you born a loser? If not you sure succeeded at becoming one.

It you cannot stay on topic then don't post.

Feel free to do all the FOX bashing you want when it comes to a topic on a Fox reporter being found to have improper credentials making claims that are later proven false. Until then keep your rabid irrational hate filled moonbat ignorance to yourself.

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Your summary is a lie. He was not part of the mainstream media. You have absolutely zero credibility.

Read the fvcking article. He was working under Brian Ross and a lot of investigative work is being re-checked now.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Let me get this straight. A huckster in the MSM pulls a fast one and that means the entire industry is in question. So if any lawyer ever committed perjury or stole from a client, clearly the entire legal community is corrupt. The recent sports corruption clearly that highlights every team is crooked.

Why is one example a condemnation of an entire company or industry? And once the guy was found out he wasn't covered up, he was fired.

Further: "ABC began looking back at Debat's work to see if anything was false. They found no evidence of incorrect material, said Ross, adding that most of the information Debat provided was verified by others."

What's the outrage about? They didn't promote the guy for creativity, they canned him.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Perhaps, sirjonk, you've been asleep at the wheel and missed the various debacles over the past year or so. Let's start with Dan Rather's infamous lies and work our way forward.

This is hardly an isolated incident.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Ldir
Your summary is a lie. He was not part of the mainstream media. You have absolutely zero credibility.

Read the fvcking article. He was working under Brian Ross and a lot of investigative work is being re-checked now.

You read it. He used to be. He was fired. He did not work for ABC when this happened. ABC responded anyway. They checked his old work. They did not find anything wrong. Your summary is a lie. Got it?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
You read it. He used to be. He was fired. He did not work for ABC when this happened. ABC responded anyway. They checked his old work. They did not find anything wrong. Your summary is a lie. Got it?

Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong Again.

Perhaps you should peruse the second link I've posted in the OP. It's fresh.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Ldir
You read it. He used to be. He was fired. He did not work for ABC when this happened. ABC responded anyway. They checked his old work. They did not find anything wrong. Your summary is a lie. Got it?

Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong Again.

Perhaps you should peruse the second link I've posted in the OP. It's fresh.

Get someone to read it to you. It says the same thing.

"ABC fired Mr. Debat in June after discovering that his claims of having earned a doctorate from the Sorbonne were false. The network then investigated the reports Mr. Debat had participated in and found ?they absolutely checked out,? Mr. Ross said. '

The rest of the article is the same. Everything they checked was accurate. They are still checking. Your summary is still a lie. He did not work for ABC when this happened.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps, sirjonk, you've been asleep at the wheel and missed the various debacles over the past year or so. Let's start with Dan Rather's infamous lies and work our way forward.

This is hardly an isolated incident.

Rather was essentially fired as well when they refused to renew his contract. There's a little more politics involved in firing a 44 yr veteran than a background consultant. Who's next?
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
I just can't figure out what goes on in your head. Your posts seem to make Dave's look perfectly logical.

The guy was fired because he couldn't authenticate his sources and, a year after he was fired, he is doing the same crap, yet it's ABC's fault? Hell, you even get a second link that talks about how ABC is investigating the crap that this guy came up with.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Bad media is a consequence of the wrong incentives

I think the lack of journalism in this country is more a result of the wrong incentives (in the economist's use of the term). specifically, the incentives for journalists and the incentives for media companies discourage honest reporting and incourage sensationalism.

Reporters make more money and have more job security if you are a "brand" and not just a part of a brand. so, being a journalist that gets talked about - by picking fights, making outrageous comments, being good looking, having special access - means more profit for the reporter through book sales, appearances, etc. Bob Woodward saves all his interviewing for a book because he's a brand all his own. that's why what he learns is not a part of the paper.

Commentary is cheaper to produce than actual reporting. it is more costly to pay for the person who investigates for a week to produce one story than it is to have someone comment on someone else's reporting in front of a camera. Does Fox News even have a reporter?

Media has an interest in "big stories". ratings go up during wars. bombs make good video. ever notice how Iraq coverage focuses on the explosions and not the suffering?

There are no "reputation costs" in the punditry. this is an economic term for the costs of people having a untrustworthy experience with you in the past. if a repair person does a terrible job, you would only call them back if their price was much lower than the alternatives. but pundits never pay a reputation cost. getting it wrong in the past has nothing to do with the number of appearances.

Outrageous remarks make good television. being outlandish and outrageous, counter-sensible, means you get time to present your case. prudence and common sense are dull. calling someone a name or taunting someone is that fight people can't turn away from.

One direct consequence of the prevalence of intellectual sloth in our societies is not only voter indifference and apathy, but as well the complacent acceptance of the "dumbing down" (and disinformation) of the news and of the political discourse - after all, journalists and politicians are from the same culture as the voters's ... thus our current tabloid journalism and politics. Assault on Reason, anyone?.

Hence, the "it's all about me", "not in my backyard", "who cares? ", "we're the best", "not my problem", "we're good, they're evil" and other such selfish, uncaring, absolutist and/or uninformed attitudes that have been prevailing among the citizenry



 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
The rest of the article is the same. Everything they checked was accurate. They are still checking. Your summary is still a lie. He did not work for ABC when this happened.

And once again, you are wrong. The fact is, the guy did work for ABC. Whether he was in-house or a paid consultant is of no merit. And if, as you say, Mr. Ross said "it all checked out", then perhaps you could explain this:

Now, however, ABC is taking a further look into information Mr. Debat provided. Mr. Ross said ABC had dispatched an investigator to Pakistan to go over details of reports in which Mr. Debat provided information. At the same time, The Associated Press reported last night that it also was investigating three news reports that relied on Mr. Debat for information.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spinning the situation.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Ldir
The rest of the article is the same. Everything they checked was accurate. They are still checking. Your summary is still a lie. He did not work for ABC when this happened.

And once again, you are wrong. The fact is, the guy did work for ABC. Whether he was in-house or a paid consultant is of no merit. And if, as you say, Mr. Ross said "it all checked out", then perhaps you could explain this:

Now, however, ABC is taking a further look into information Mr. Debat provided. Mr. Ross said ABC had dispatched an investigator to Pakistan to go over details of reports in which Mr. Debat provided information. At the same time, The Associated Press reported last night that it also was investigating three news reports that relied on Mr. Debat for information.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spinning the situation.

I'm pretty sure you're the only one misinformed and spinning the situation. Let's do a little list:

  • Debat was fired for failing to authenticate sources
  • While working for a think tank, Debate creates interviews for a French magazine
  • ABC reopens an investigation into the articles that Debat wrote while he worked for ABC
  • The recent interviews were done while he was not employed by ABC

I really don't want to defend ABC, but the crap you're spewing is ridiculous.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Media has become a business, far more so than it has been in the past. This is a far greater problem than political bias, making money is the only goal...which inevitably leads to a decline in quality since the average consumer isn't very discerning. For the more traditional news outlets like the big 3 and CNN and the big papers, this means fewer in-depth reports, especially about foreign stories, an increased reliance on cheap stories with pretty pictures, and a decrease in the amount of research that goes into ANY stories. For the newer organizations like Fox News (and increasingly, the older media as well), this means catering to specific market segments by replacing news with opinion...and not even particularly good opinion. Bill O'Reilly isn't a substitute for Edward R. Murrow...and neither was Dan Rather, for that matter.

If anyone is really interested in the problems with modern media, as opposed to just looking for a "liberal media" excuse not to listen to things you don't want to hear, read the book "Bad News" by Tom Fenton. It's a great look at the state of modern media and how it got that way, and refreshingly, political bias is mentioned very rarely. It's way better than the Bernard Goldberg whine-fest.

I agree. Since the media managed to tear down Nixon, it seems they have finally realized the true power they wield in this country, and they have no shame in using it to nudge the electorate in one direction or another. The media in this country holds more power over the electorate than any political entity, and they are accountable to noone. The problem is that there is no way to fix it. The media is just another example of the breakdown of any kind of moral or social responsibility in this country. The almighty dollar now takes precedence over everything.

The media isn't nudging anyone anywhere, that's the whole point. The media is SUPPOSED to wield a lot of power, they are supposed to go after lying politicians who break the law, but the fact is that they very rarely exercise that power. It is way cheaper, and way more effective business, to simply MIRROR the electorate instead of trying to shape or inform the debate. They ARE accountable, and that accountability is now in their pocket books. Bias doesn't pay, but crummy reporting (if nobody catches on) does.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't really want to jump into the political bias in media debate, but I will say that even if you're right about the extent of the problem, I think the other problems in media dwarf the worst political bias can bring out. Folks in media could certainly color their coverage of a story to suit their political views, but you can't do that too much before it becomes really obvious and stops working. For example, I think the absolutely crummy depth of coverage of the Middle East and Iraq in particular is far worse than whatever political spin might be on the few stories that DO make it out. I'd take Bill O'Reilly reporting on the political situation inside Saudi Arabia over the complete lack of coverage it's getting now. I mean, you seem to have very sensitive "liberal media" radar, so it's obviously not going to fool you...if you can pick it out so clearly, wouldn't you rather get liberally biased coverage than none at all?

Yeah, but the difference here is that O'Reilly, for example, is not a journalist. He's a commentator. Paid to give his opinion. The folks that are being caught up in these media scandals are almost always anchors, journalists, et al whose job is to report news, not opinion.

I don't think it is a stretch to say that ALL media has sunk credibility-wise. Doesn't matter what network or newspaper, they've all fallen from the ranks. Some further than others...

I realize O'Reilly has never claimed to be a journalist, but that doesn't mean he (and folks like him) aren't absolutely killing the news industry. Biased, uninformed commentary doesn't become an acceptable substitute for news just because the commentators are blatant about what they are doing. The news industry used to spend their time and resources covering the news, but they are finding out that it's cheaper and more lucrative to replace news with idiots ranting about things. You're right, nobody can accuse Bill O'Reilly of being a crummy journalist, because he never claimed to be a journalist at all...but that doesn't make him a good substitute for real news. If programs like his were offered in addition to unbiased, informative coverage of world events, I'd have no complaint. But when "news" is slowly shifting away from Edward R. Murrow towards Bill O'Reilly, I don't think that's a good thing.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,206
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
how's abc faking interviews any different than fox news faking news?

you bash abc and cbs, but you don't say anything about your beloved bush administration wet dream, fox news?