Rather may have received a forged copy of the memo but nobody refuted the facts behind it. Didn't the woman who typed it even say she remembered it?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
But so does every other "news" channel.
Fox has two news shows: Sheppard Smith and Brit Hume. The last 15-20 minutes (not counting comercials) of Hume's show does have a panel though.
Chris Mathews, Nancy Grace, 360 (I forget the guys name, small with silver hair even though young). Then there's MSNBC with it's constant repeats about sex pred "stings" and prison documentary.
CNN, and most of the other channels have news throughout the day, but once past about 7pm it's all talking heads (except MSNBC as noted above.)
They ALL suck at Iraq coverage. Frankly, I don't think there's much value in what they do show (those that show more), it's a war, why wouldn't things be blown up and people killed? I find that todays news coverage mimicks TV and movies - show something blowing up & car crashes etc. Special effects stuff, no thought required etc.
I wish the coverage was on much more important stuff, like:
What's the status of the Iraq government?
What are the areas of disagreement within the various factions?
What are the prosposals to come to agreement?
Who are the players & what are their backgrounds/education/?
How exactly is this government designed to function, any checks & balances etc? What are the "branches?
While some have decided to "give up on the Iraqi's, we as a nation must decide what we are going to do, and how long we are goingto do it, i.e., if there's any progress within the government etc. Showing blown up cars and that kinda stuff doesn't do anything in terms of coming to a informed decision.
Disagree. I saw it reported on the Brit Hume show (forget the name of his show ATM). He didn't report it as fact. He reported it as being from the source, that's all.
IIRC, some other news agency/channel purported to follow up on the acuracy of the original report. They did so by flying someone down there and asking the Director if they were a maddrasses. He said 'no". OK, case closed. That was laughable as a so-called "investigation"
Fern
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Wait, so you guys are perfectly ok with reporters completely fabricating news and using obviously fake documents as long as it fits your agenda? Amazing.
The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.
The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.
Jesus, do you actually believe the crap you write? It's like you suffer from some kind of paranoid delusions, where everybody with an opposing opinion is paid. You are a sick little man. I guess I need to learn to skip over your nutty posts like most others.
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I honestly dont know whether the original source is credible or not, or even how you define "credible". I will say if it is a known "tabloid" source and Fox or anyone else for that matter reports it as NEWS, yeah thats irresponsible. But honestly...havent all news sources done this? Dont get me wrong Im not excusing it by any means, just saying (and making my own point) that news in general is very subjective.
Err, so now the story is true? I believe it was first on their morning show and they didn't add any CYA to the story, it was repeated over and over and over again as a fact.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
The less credible the news source, the more fact checking that you have to do. For example, almost all major news outlets (fox news included) use AP news stories and just copy/paste them on their websites. They probably don't have to do too much confirmation to know that the AP most likely did a thorough job with their fact checking. However, when you get down to these tabloid/internet news sources, you have to actually do some fact checking to see that their bias and sensationalism has some sort of facts to back it up. Otherwise, why bother? You can just quote "news" from Democratic Underground or Free Republic and save a lot of money on staff. What Fox News did was unethical.
Great talking points. If only they were true. The memo was not obviously fake. It seems forged because the font used was rare then but they never proved it one way or the other. The important thing is they verified the story with the officer's secretary. She said the document was real. Rather's copy of the memo may have been forged. The story was accurate. The truth hurts.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Do you also think its ok to plant evidence when it obvious that someone is guilty, but you might not have enough evidence to make it stick in court? Same concept.
Edit - how can you possibly defend one of the most trusted news anchors in America using falsified documents just to further his own agenda?
What does that have to do with the truth of the story? This is not a court. Rather did not plant anything. It was sent to him. They investigated. The secretary verified it. The story was true. Can you post even one comment without diverting? It does not look like it.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
The issue with that story is that he did not fact check like any responsible reporter would do. The issue with the Rather was that he did not use proper methods to make sure that what he got was legit, you are the one trying to divert from what Rather did. He rushed to get this out to the news because it fit his agenda, thats pretty damn obvious to anyone without partisan blinders on.
If a cop is chasing someone that was selling drugs, and the guy they are chasing throws his bag of crack into a river so that he cannot be charged with possession, is it ok for the cop to plant a bag of crack on the guy? The truth of the story is that the guy was selling crack and had it on him, so that makes everything ok right?
I'm not diverting anything, you can't answer my simple question.
Actually, the problem wasn't that he recieved and used a forged document.
The problem was that he recieved a forged document from a very controversial source.
Then he failed to do even the slightest check to verify the authenticity of the document.
Then he put it on the air as fact and tried to prop it up.
Novice journalists in high school and college are held to higher standards than Rather tried to hold himself up to. Even they know better than to do what he did.
Hell I took 9 hours of journalism in college and on day 1 I learned you check and double check every source and every document and the more controversial a document is the more it should be scrutinized.
I will not keep repeating myself. This is not a court. CBS did fact check the story. The memo was real. The secretary verified it. The story was accurate even if Rather's copy of the memo was forged. You can keep lying if you want but you will be lying to yourself. I am done with you and your diversions.
OMG are you really this silly?
Do you REALLY prove facts to yourself by repeating what you want to hear over and over again until you can force yourself to believe it?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Rathergate)
Jump to: navigation, search
One of the Killian documents, allegedly typed in 1972.
One of the Killian documents, allegedly typed in 1972.
The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved four of six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard. The four documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS. Subsequently, a number of expert forensic document examiners concluded that the six memos are almost certainly forgeries.
The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now ? I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[2] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[2][3]
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel detailed criticism of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[4] The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."
The memos, allegedly written in 1972 and 1973 were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes and Michael Smith, a freelance journalist from Texas who was collaborating with Mapes, from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former Texas Air National Guard officer, although CBS did not name him as the source until other news organizations began to speculate about Burkett's role. Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after making and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of Governor Bush",[5] and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records[6][7] According to the review panel, investigations by major news outlets at the time, including CBS, "revealed inconsistencies... which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven."[8] The review panel found that despite this coverage, "no one involved in the vetting of the September 8 segment seemed to be aware of it."[9]
Mapes and Smith made contact with Burkett in late August, and on August 24 Burkett offered to meet with them to share the documents he possessed. Emails between Smith and Mapes document their discussion of providing assistance to Burkett (financial compensation, help negotiating a book deal, security, and Burkett's request that they facilitate his contact with the John Kerry Campaign) in exchange for the documents but found no evidence that any of these proposals "contemplated in these emails was ever consummated, except for putting Burkett in touch with the Kerry campaign," which the report characterized as, "a clear violation of CBS News' standard II-I as an 'unethical newsgathering practice."[10] During the last week of August, Mapes contacted her immediate superior, Josh Howard, who "emphatically denied giving Mapes permission to make the call." Mapes claims that Howard authorized the contact[11] and in any case, she was in contact with the campaign several times during the period of the end of August through September 6, when she spoke with senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart regarding the progressing story. Lockhart later told the Panel that he was "wary" of contact with Mapes at this stage, because if the story were true, his involvement might undermine its credibility, and if it were false, "he did not want to be associated with it."[12]
Two documents were provided by Burkett to Mapes on September 2 and four others on September 5, 2004. At the time he supplied the documents, Burkett told Mapes that they were copies of originals that had been obtained from Killian's personal files via Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, another former member of the TexANG (Later, Burkett changed his story more than once about his claims regarding how he supposedly came into possession of the documents). At this time, Mapes contacted Rather to keep him up to date on the progress of the story, which was being targeted to air on September 8.
Response of the document examiners
Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[26]
* Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.
* Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written.
* James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. Pierce also told Mapes he could not reach a conclusion about authenticity because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.
* Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[27] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[28]
* Both Emily Will and Linda James suggested to Mapes that CBS contact typewriter expert Peter Tytell. Associate producer Yvonne Miller left him a voicemail on September 7; he returned the call at 11 am on September 8 but was told they "did not need him anymore."[29]
Seriously pull your head out of the sand.
You have the same problem that Rather had. You want something to be true, thus you just gotta convince yourself that it is.
Do you REALLY prove facts to yourself by repeating what you want to hear over and over again until you can force yourself to believe it?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Rathergate)
Jump to: navigation, search
One of the Killian documents, allegedly typed in 1972.
One of the Killian documents, allegedly typed in 1972.
The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved four of six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard. The four documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS. Subsequently, a number of expert forensic document examiners concluded that the six memos are almost certainly forgeries.
The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now ? I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[2] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[2][3]
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel detailed criticism of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[4] The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."
The memos, allegedly written in 1972 and 1973 were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes and Michael Smith, a freelance journalist from Texas who was collaborating with Mapes, from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former Texas Air National Guard officer, although CBS did not name him as the source until other news organizations began to speculate about Burkett's role. Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after making and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of Governor Bush",[5] and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records[6][7] According to the review panel, investigations by major news outlets at the time, including CBS, "revealed inconsistencies... which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven."[8] The review panel found that despite this coverage, "no one involved in the vetting of the September 8 segment seemed to be aware of it."[9]
Mapes and Smith made contact with Burkett in late August, and on August 24 Burkett offered to meet with them to share the documents he possessed. Emails between Smith and Mapes document their discussion of providing assistance to Burkett (financial compensation, help negotiating a book deal, security, and Burkett's request that they facilitate his contact with the John Kerry Campaign) in exchange for the documents but found no evidence that any of these proposals "contemplated in these emails was ever consummated, except for putting Burkett in touch with the Kerry campaign," which the report characterized as, "a clear violation of CBS News' standard II-I as an 'unethical newsgathering practice."[10] During the last week of August, Mapes contacted her immediate superior, Josh Howard, who "emphatically denied giving Mapes permission to make the call." Mapes claims that Howard authorized the contact[11] and in any case, she was in contact with the campaign several times during the period of the end of August through September 6, when she spoke with senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart regarding the progressing story. Lockhart later told the Panel that he was "wary" of contact with Mapes at this stage, because if the story were true, his involvement might undermine its credibility, and if it were false, "he did not want to be associated with it."[12]
Two documents were provided by Burkett to Mapes on September 2 and four others on September 5, 2004. At the time he supplied the documents, Burkett told Mapes that they were copies of originals that had been obtained from Killian's personal files via Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, another former member of the TexANG (Later, Burkett changed his story more than once about his claims regarding how he supposedly came into possession of the documents). At this time, Mapes contacted Rather to keep him up to date on the progress of the story, which was being targeted to air on September 8.
Response of the document examiners
Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[26]
* Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.
* Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written.
* James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. Pierce also told Mapes he could not reach a conclusion about authenticity because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.
* Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[27] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[28]
* Both Emily Will and Linda James suggested to Mapes that CBS contact typewriter expert Peter Tytell. Associate producer Yvonne Miller left him a voicemail on September 7; he returned the call at 11 am on September 8 but was told they "did not need him anymore."[29]
Seriously pull your head out of the sand.
You have the same problem that Rather had. You want something to be true, thus you just gotta convince yourself that it is.
and people wonder why I cannot take most of ya'll seriously. The memo was proven to have been created with Word. they NEVER showed an original memo from the time it was supposedly written.
If the memo were true why are the people who were at CBS behind this fiasco still out of jobs?
It was a cheap hit piece from a previously respected piece, but Rather's BDS got the best of him and his reputation is forever tarnished.
Let me guess, airplane fuel cannot make steel melt in your world either.
Thank you for telling me how to treat anything you have to say further. Your forever in the tinfoil hat nutjob bin.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Ya know what, nvm Ldir. I guess you're just another hardcore partisan that can't see the flaws in your own side. There is no point in debating with you if you are trying to deny something that just about everyone on both sides of the aisle admit was a huge screwup.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter