My head is going to explode



So today on C.N.N. they have a story, about a story, about a story.

Apparently there was recently held in New York a discussion in which Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings took part. The topic of discussion was, reportedly, the media and political coverage. C.N.N. reports that on the topic of the recent 60 Minutes news story about a (now all but proven falsified) memorandum which was provided to C.B.S. by a former member of President Bush's Guard unit. Jennings and Brokaw called the critics of CBS news - "unfair" and - "inaccurate".

Let's review the facts.

C.B.S. was in the midst of a major story about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The topic of the story - which had just been put in the can, and had taken C.B.S. six months to prepare - was "How could the President be fooled by false documents". The story, which was suppose to run on that fateful evening, was instead put on a back-burner so that Dan Rather could present a new story - a story about Bush in the Guard - a story totally based on a document they (C.B.S.) had just received from a former member of the guard unit in which Bush was also a member. Despite most of the C.B.S. legal staff saying that the document could not be authenticated - it was Dan Rather who decided to go on with the story.

Now here is what we all know:.

1) Mr. Burkett contacted C.B.S. news and told them he had the document, but that he would not provide the document to C.B.S. until after C.B.S. had used it's influence with the Kerry campaign to have them contact Mr. Burkett.
2) Representatives of C.B.S. news did contact the Kerry campaign and members of that campaign did contact Mr. Burkett. We can only take the word of the Kerry campaign and that of Mr. Burkett regarding what discussions followed.
3) After this, Mr. Burkett turned the now infamous document over to C.B.S. news.
4) The document underwent review by C.B.S. news staff (supposedly skilled at such decisions) and three out of four of those staffers said the document was not verifiable - that C.B.S. should not run the story. Only one staffer said that the document could in fact - be real.
5) The document was apparently drafted using Microsoft Word.
6) Mr. Burkett is a staunch anti-Bush activist.
7) Mr. Burkett has been in a long lasting battle with the Veterans Affairs over medical benefits.

C.B.S. news apparently knew nothing of this and ran the story simply based on the document and a single analyst at C.B.S. who said that the document could have been made on an I.B.M. selectric typewriter. They did not research the history of Mr. Burkett, they did not question why he refused to give them the documents until after C.B.S. contacted the Kerry campaign. They did not question the document or it's source. Instead they (Dan Rather) ran forward screaming "See, see look here we have the proof."

And when the document was questioned what was their response?

"The document is real or we wouldn't have gone forward with the story" (Dan Rather).

Then when the other questions were raised what was the response?

"It doesn't matter if the document is real or not - what is important is the heart of the story. Did George Bush get preferential treatment or not." (Dan Rather).

Later Mr. Rather would apologize, refusing the call the document a forgery, a fake or even a fraud - but rather saying that it could no longer be "verified".

Is that about it? Is that being inaccurate or unfair?

I guess the real question - Dan - is "How can someone so high up in an organization - after having reviewed all the information and after finding the original information to be false... how can that person remain solid in their original position that they did the right thing?"

You have to ask yourself "How anyone in such a position can then say that any one else who questions those actions now (after the fact) are simply inaccurate distractors bent on confusing the public. Shouldn't that person be removed from office - ah, I mean job?"

Do these questions sound familiar Mr. Rather?

For years you have been telling us that you are a professional - well look it up - Dan.

But, who couldn't see this liberal media C.Y.A. response coming from miles out?

My - how the excuses fly:

"It was my producers fault"; "It's the fault of the Republican spin machine"; "It's really the heart of the story that matters"; "It's the fault of those conservatives over at Fox News".

Freakin' people and their glass houses.

Posted: Sun - October 3, 2004 at 11:31 AM   If this blog entry was of use to you, why not show your appreciation by donating to support the site? Just click on the MAKE A DONATION button on the right hand side of the page! It's all handled by PAYPAL.
  |   |   | | | |

©