The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:09 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:58 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... /cbs_guard

Dan Rather gets off scott free. CBS claims "myopic zeal" and "over enthusiasm", not anti-Bush bias.

Yeah, right. From a network whose employees gave a total of two $2,000 donations to Republican candidates?

_________________
Fandemonium!
August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2014

"I am a machine. I am a weapon of war. I am a destroyer of life in the service of life, the sword and shield of my human creators." Bolo Invincibilus, Mark XXIII, Model B (Experimental) 0075-NKE "Nike".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:17 am 
I'm missing something here

I do believe it's your point.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:50 am 
Offline
Energizer Bunny
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:24 am
Posts: 1634
Indeed. So there were faked memos; the fact is that Bush did indeed fail in his military obligations, and memos or no the facts for same are all available.

What puzzles me is why Bill Novak still has his job and still walks free while his colleagues are sent to jail for contempt for not revealing their sources for articles not even related to the issue at hand (namely the release of the name of a CIA agent critical of the Bush administration)

Vorn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:15 am 
"Four months after the report was aired, the panel still couldn't say conclusively whether memos allegedly disparaging Bush's service were real or fake."


Yeah, just throwing that in there. I haven't been following this story, but why is it assumed that the memos are faked? The issue was that they didn't stop to verify before reporting, not that they aired documents that were false.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:54 pm 
Sadly, all these memos did was support the case already well evidenced by sworn testimony and documents. Presumably the CBS people were trying to locate "smoking gun" evidence that the rest of the networks couldn't ignore.

Atrios over at Eschaton puts the whole thing in perspective:

Quote:
The funny (and of course overlooked by the cranial-rectal inversion crowd) thing about the CBS/document story is that contrary to the screeching about it, the entire saga is proof that there is no goddamn liberal media.

Jayson Blair was fired in noisy disgrace for making up mostly harmless stuff, taking down Howell Raines with him. One botched news story at CBS, in which the substances was entirely true but the window dressing was not authenticated, and multiple people lose their jobs, and it becomes the biggest media story of the year. Why do we know or care? Because the right wing cranks demanded the head of the "liberal" Clinton-hating-obsessive Howell Raines because he opposed the Iraq war by putting Judith Miller on the front page. That story garnered blanket wall to wall media coverage, and has established itself as the reference point for "bad media," with the universal liberal media consensus being that it was in part a consequence of affirmative action programs.

Judith Miller - Shitty reporting. Doesn't believe it's her job to try to verify what her sources tell her. Claimed she was "proved fucking right," though about what we're not sure. Times defends her. Lots of people dead.

Jack Kelley was fired rather quietly with not very much publicity from USA Today after it was discovered he manufactured massive piles of horeshit over a period of several years about things which actually did matter. Editors ignored complaints for years, by their own admission in part because they trusted him because he was a devout Christian. One or two day minor story, no one knows who Jack Kelley is, and while it was a much more serious problem, his name, unlike Blair's, is not the standard name invoked as an example of "bad media." Editors did resign in the wake, but for some reason did not become household names and are not regularly mentioned as examples of "bad editors."

Stephen Glass -- made lots of shit up. Coddled, protected, and promoted heavily by conservative editors at the New Republic who never had their reputations tarnished by the situation.

Even more serious stuff:

Jeff Gerth: Original Whitewater story almost entirely wrong, with Gerth clearly lying about parts of it (that is, parts were false in ways which he clearly knew were false). Times defends him and the story to this day.

Lisa Myers -- deliberately alters tapes to convey false story about Mrs. Clinton. Her punishment? Promotion.

Chris Vlasto -- Many sins, including pulling a "Lisa Myers" himself, producing a segment for Nightline with deliberately improperly edited tape. Punishment? Promotion.

Jeff Greenfield -- Nightline correspondent on Vlasto produced segment. Punishment? Cushy job at CNN.

I could go on and on. But, the worst Rather has been accused of by sensible people is letting partisanship cloud his judgment. Accepting that as true just for sake of argument, it's still a far less egregious sin than most of the Whitewater-era horseshit which has never been acknowledged as horseshit by the liberal media, even though unlike the Rather incident, much of that horseshit was clearly deliberately manufactured by the producers and reporters. These events were recycled and echoed throuhgout the entire liberal media, with no one calling foul and no one calling for their heads. Without making any statement about what the appropriate consequences for "Rathergate" should be, it's clear that the media attention by that liberal media and the actual consequences have been much greater than dozens of worse incidents involving clear deliberate deception by people in the media.

Dan Rather - evil biased liberal whose partisanship led him to jump the gun on a story? Believe that if you want, I don't really care. But, "Rathergate" proof of "liberal media?" Just the opposite.


I would add Michael Isikoff to the list. He spent a couple of years sniffing at Clinton's crotch trying to get some dirt on his personal habits, apparently for no other reason than he wanted to make a name for himself. He also admitted in his own book on the Clinton scandals that he'd repeatedly been used as a patsy by the right wing smear-machine; he was their best "useful idiot" for passing ugly Arkansa gossip into the national media. He was punished for his sleaziness and gullibility by being made a senior investigative correspondent at Newsweek. He still has that position, and is a flourishing member of the Sunday morning punditocracy.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:49 am 
Berken wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah It doesn't matter if they were faked because Bush had to have done it blah blah blah blah blah blah he attacked Clinton! blah blah blah...


Gadz this forum is getting monotonous. I should just put it on ignore.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:55 am 
Kazriko wrote:
Berken wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah It doesn't matter if they were faked because Bush had to have done it blah blah blah blah blah blah he attacked Clinton! blah blah blah...

Gadz this forum is getting monotonous. I should just put it on ignore.

Constructive alternative opinions and information are always welcome.

Rather screwed up. He apologized and is retiring. Four producers also screwed up; they were fired. Very likely the personal political views of these people had an effect on their decisions. This sort of punishment should be dealt out more often.

Still, CBS has shown higher ethical and professional standards than a lot of other important news organizations. Liberal or conservative, they should be basing their reporting on evidence and should be "speaking the truth to power" instead of kissing up to or colluding with it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:14 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Berken wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah It doesn't matter if they were faked because Bush had to have done it blah blah blah blah blah blah he attacked Clinton! blah blah blah...


You need to work on your reading comprehension, Kaz.

Quote:
Gadz this forum is getting monotonous. I should just put it on ignore.


Don't let me stop you.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:36 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Berken wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah It doesn't matter if they were faked because Bush had to have done it blah blah blah blah blah blah he attacked Clinton! blah blah blah...

Gadz this forum is getting monotonous. I should just put it on ignore.

Kaz, with your strong Libertarian beliefs, I am puzzled that you would take Bush's version of his history at face value. The retired general who admitted letting him and other Children of Privilege into that squadron was testifying under oath in a criminal trial.

And why should such an action surprise any of us? I don't believe there is anyone who has contributed to this list in my memory naive enough to think that rich people don't pull strings to get special treatment by the government either some or all of the time. The question would be how often, what significance there was to special treatment, and how does it relate to current politics.

I don't even disagree that there is "Liberal Bias" in parts of the news media. I just don't consider it remotely as important these days as the upsurge in conservative bias and courtesanship (kissing up to the hierarchy). Also, neither of these is as dangerous as the bias in favor of greedy self-interest, social climing, ignorance and illiteracy. If more reporters, editors, and news managers lived up to the traditional standards still shared by the news sections of The Nation and the Wall Street Journal, most of the other biases would matter a lot less.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:46 am 
I'm not taking his version at face value, I'm just saying I'm sick and tired of hearing people whine about it here.

With the constant obligatory references on how they did they same thing to Clinton. Of course they did, it's politics. BOTH sides do the same sort of thing.

Sure, Bush missed requalifying, he was too busy sniffing cocaine, he was too busy campaigning. Fine. As long as you are even handed and admit that Clinton isn't all roses either. It's either "Yay Clinton down Bush" or "Yay Bush Down Clinton" and never anything inbetween.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:42 am 
Kazriko wrote:
I'm not taking his version at face value, I'm just saying I'm sick and tired of hearing people whine about it here.

With the constant obligatory references on how they did they same thing to Clinton. Of course they did, it's politics. BOTH sides do the same sort of thing.

Sure, Bush missed requalifying, he was too busy sniffing cocaine, he was too busy campaigning. Fine. As long as you are even handed and admit that Clinton isn't all roses either. It's either "Yay Clinton down Bush" or "Yay Bush Down Clinton" and never anything inbetween.


Actually, I didn't really like Clinton, and I hate Bush. Do I count as being in between?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:25 am 
DarkShadowed0 wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
I'm not taking his version at face value, I'm just saying I'm sick and tired of hearing people whine about it here.

With the constant obligatory references on how they did they same thing to Clinton. Of course they did, it's politics. BOTH sides do the same sort of thing.

Sure, Bush missed requalifying, he was too busy sniffing cocaine, he was too busy campaigning. Fine. As long as you are even handed and admit that Clinton isn't all roses either. It's either "Yay Clinton down Bush" or "Yay Bush Down Clinton" and never anything inbetween.

Actually, I didn't really like Clinton, and I hate Bush. Do I count as being in between?

A good chunck of the population falls in between. Not a problem, there.

The more serious question is: do you feel you are doing your own thinking or just reacting to the irritating yap and phoney talking points that swamp the media coverage? Are you satisfied that you've sifted through information from partisans and non-partisans to try to find some semblance of rational truth?

With the economy being buried in debt, wars going on in various places, terrorists with WMDs, medical costs skyrocketing, politicians taking huge payoffs ("contributions") right out in public and bragging about it, and possible apocalyptic climate changes in the offing, we can use every serious citizen
we can find, regardless of which way their emotional reactions flow.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:09 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
Berken wrote:
politicians taking huge payoffs ("contributions") right out in public and bragging about it,


If that's a reference to the bit in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Bush says "I call you my base.", have you seen Fahrenhype 9/11 where you get to see that's actually from a charity fundraiser dinner, held every election year, where the candidates make fun of themselves. Al Gore was also there, but of course you wouldn't hear that from Michael Moore.

_________________
Fandemonium!
August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2014

"I am a machine. I am a weapon of war. I am a destroyer of life in the service of life, the sword and shield of my human creators." Bolo Invincibilus, Mark XXIII, Model B (Experimental) 0075-NKE "Nike".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:29 am 
bizzybody wrote:
Berken wrote:
politicians taking huge payoffs ("contributions") right out in public and bragging about it,

If that's a reference to the bit in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Bush says "I call you my base.", have you seen Fahrenhype 9/11 where you get to see that's actually from a charity fundraiser dinner, held every election year, where the candidates make fun of themselves. Al Gore was also there, but of course you wouldn't hear that from Michael Moore.

Thanks, but I wouldn't dream of giving you such an easy target. Or flog an opinion based on a single anecdote. That's an old Rush Limbaugh trick.

The national politicians---the Republican leadership is just more brazen about it then the others---openly advertise how much it costs to buy access to them. I'd guess the going rate for a meeting or lunch with the President or officials who might regulate your industry is up in the tens of thousands of dollars.

What would have been seen as an obvious attempt to collect and extort payoff money in the old days of the Chicago political machine is now just considered marketing. You give them the money, you get to sit in on the meetings where the legislation is written. In the Illinois legislature, where they aren't as subtle about these things as they are in Washington, you can actually watch the white envelopes stuffed with "campaign contributions" being passed around the floor during roll-call votes.

Since I'm historically-minded, the whole whorish business is reminicent of Papal indulgences in the medieval Catholic church gradually being degraded into a mass-marketed money raising operation with only a trivial nod to its connection to the original spiritual purpose, that just to maintain an illusion of sanctity.

There are even ongoing lawsuits in which conservative groups are trying to have any restrictions on contributions for any reason declared a violation of free speech. That is one of those new, invented rights that they would otherwise complain about. A Constitutional Right to Bribe.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group