Rather sues CBS

[boywiththorninside]

Someone needs to tell Rather to stop living in the past. Whatever the truth of the National Guard/Bush matter is, the false documents appeared in the broadcast. If Rather truly dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, these documents would not have seen the light of day. Unfortunately for Dan they did and he's got to live with the consequences. Dan had been around a long time and CBS News was probably looking to make a change. After all, at the time, Brokaw was about to retire and Jennings was ill. All the other networks were changing, so CBS probably wanted to as well. By broadcasting a story which included false documents, Dan gave CBS News the perfect opening/pretext to make a change. That's the gist of it for me. I really believe the whole thing is more about the desires of the CBS News division than about the machinations of the Bush White House.

[cryptique]

Whatever the truth of the National Guard/Bush matter is, the false documents appeared in the broadcast.

Did you read the article? The documents have not been proven to be false. No one has been successful in disproving their authenticity.

 

The right-wing propaganda apparatus succeeded in getting lots of people to believe that they're false, but they've been unable to actually prove that they're false. It's yet another case of misdirection, and sadly, lots of people have fallen for it.

[JerseyMike]

strongly doubt Rather is seeking that money for himself. That figure likely accomplishes two things: one, it's large enough to make CBS take notice, and two, it could cover a lot of expenses for whatever Dan's favorite charities might be.

 

I could be wrong, but Rather's a millionaire many times over already, and I don't see this as an attempt to further enrich himself. Even if it is, I say, stick it to 'em, Dan!

 

Excellent point.

 

The right-wing propaganda apparatus succeeded in getting lots of people to believe that they're false, but they've been unable to actually prove that they're false. It's yet another case of misdirection, and sadly, lots of people have fallen for it.

 

I am currently reading "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Frank Riech. Riech was the NY Times chief drama critic and is now an op-ed writer, but the book is basically about how the White House used PR, and the american media to sell the war in Iraq and all of the BS that has gone along with "the war on terror". Defintely a good read.

 

The Liberal Media...a bigger myth than Bigfoot and the Lochness monster combined!

[boywiththorninside]

Did you read the article? The documents have not been proven to be false. No one has been successful in disproving their authenticity.

 

The right-wing propaganda apparatus succeeded in getting lots of people to believe that they're false, but they've been unable to actually prove that they're false. It's yet another case of misdirection, and sadly, lots of people have fallen for it.

 

From the Blumenthal piece: "Rather's suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his "60 Minutes II" piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained -- and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story."

 

Rather is looking to prove the documents are authentic. Can he actually do this? In his on-air apology (coerced, I know) Rather stated neither he nor CBS could prove the documents were authentic. Now he can? Alright, prove it to me, Dan.

 

Other than the one you posted, the only extended piece I've read on this matter was a Mary Mapes profile that appeared in Vanity Fair in 2005. Nothing in that profile led me to believe the documents were authentic and Mapes seemed willing to admit that they weren't. Vanity Fair is not part of the right wing apparatus. I rarely read VF, but when I do it's seems its entire raison d'etre is to kiss celebrities asses and lambast the Bush Administration. This said, I don't think its merely the right wing media that has accepted and promoted the idea that the documents are false.

 

I really think Dan - and everyone else - should move on. At this point, what does it matter whether Bush shirked his National Guard responsibilities or not? Personally, I don't doubt for a second that he did. I don't think anyone really doubts that he did. Most do see Bush as a guy who has committed other people's children to die in a war and yet wouldn't even meet his own minimal service requirements. This isn't news. Let's move on. Bush is the past. 2008 is the future. I'm more worried about the future.

 

Finally, I also don't think it's news the WH tried to bury the original story. This is what politicians do. Hillary supposedly just buried a negative GQ article. Pull the article or Bill won't be on the cover. This stuff is distasteful, but it unfortunately happens all the time. However, the fact the WH might have used Myers to put additional pressure on CBS is ridiculous. You'd think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have more important matters to attend to. Nonetheless, the fact remains, all politicians try to use whatever clout they have to control the media.

[bobbob1313]

It was shoddy journalism on Rather's part. Probably shouldn't have been fired for it though.

[JerseyMike]

I'm more worried about the future.

 

You and me both. Amen to that! My biggest worry with all of this peripheral stuff is that all of these shenanigans that Bush is getting away with is just going to pave the way for future administrations, Republican or Democrat, to get away with the same sort of stuff.

 

 

 

As far a Bush burying the story, I think he's been paying people off with political favors to bury this story since he ran for Governor of Texas. If I remeber correctly, the lawyer he hired to lose the documents ended up with a huge contract to run the Texas lottery, despite being outbid by a few other companies, and I believe it was Harriet Myers who was in charge of the Texas lottery at the time. Of course, I may be completely off base. I may be thinking of some other shady Bush deal, but who's counting anymore?

[Good Old Neon]

I am currently reading "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Frank Riech. Riech was the NY Times chief drama critic and is now an op-ed writer, but the book is basically about how the White House used PR, and the american media to sell the war in Iraq and all of the BS that has gone along with "the war on terror". Defintely a good read.

 

The Liberal Media...a bigger myth than Bigfoot and the Lochness monster combined!

 

If you haven't already, I would I highly recommend adding "Manufacturing Consent" jointly written by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman to your reading list. A terrific read if you are interested in matters related to media manipulation in a Democractic society.

 

Here's a link to the first chapter or so....

 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%2...Prop_Model.html

[bjorn_skurj]

I still say that even if the media jumped up and down in 2002 saying there were no WMD in Iraq, nothing would have changed. The war would have happened and people would have supported it.

[boywiththorninside]

You and me both. Amen to that! My biggest worry with all of this peripheral stuff is that all of these shenanigans that Bush is getting away with is just going to pave the way for future administrations, Republican or Democrat, to get away with the same sort of stuff.

 

Good point. I wouldn't want this administration to set any precedent for the future. And that's why I can't really get behind Rather. For me, this story has nothing to do with the future. The story is uniquely about Bush, as a person. I just don't see how this is relevant in 2007. He can't be re-elected. His approval ratings are at record lows. At this point, there is nothing to be gained by trashing or exposing Bush. I'd rather build up a candidate I believe in for 2008.

[bobbob1313]

I still say that even if the media jumped up and down in 2002 saying there were no WMD in Iraq, nothing would have changed. The war would have happened and people would have supported it.

 

Whatever, Cheney.

[Good Old Neon]

I still say that even if the media jumped up and down in 2002 saying there were no WMD in Iraq, nothing would have changed. The war would have happened and people would have supported it.

 

I don

[ikol]

I don

[Good Old Neon]

And that only happened after we were able to search all over Iraq for them, something that would not have occurred without the war.

 

Unless of course you listened to the inspectors....Scott Ritter comes to mind.

 

Visit My Website

[cryptique]

From the Blumenthal piece: "Rather's suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his "60 Minutes II" piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained -- and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story."

Ah, but in your original post, you referred to the documents as if you regarded them as inauthentic beyond reasonable doubt. It is that with which I took issue.

 

I really think Dan - and everyone else - should move on. At this point, what does it matter whether Bush shirked his National Guard responsibilities or not?

 

[...]

 

Finally, I also don't think it's news the WH tried to bury the original story. This is what politicians do.

My concern is less about digging up Bush's Vietnam era indiscretions than with exposing the overy cozy relationship between the administration and the media. This is not something we "should move on" from -- this is a cancer that's eating away at the very core of our democracy. If the government controls the media, which for all intents and purposes they currently do, it only strengthens their ability to commit the sort of outrages we've seen over the past six years. I'm not saying that a truly vigilant, watchdog media necessarily would have changed a whole lot, but they damn sure could have affected public opinion in a way that might have kept Bush from achieving reelection in 2004. It's vitally important that we dismantle the propaganda machine and return it to a responsible, objective news-gathering culture (if it ever was).

 

I'm more worried about the future.

That's precisely why this should bother you. We need to break the bonds between the White House and the major media corporations. Until we do that, we're condemned to a world where bad policy is made palatable to the public through a media that refuses to do its job. It is this struggle, I believe, which is at the center of Rather's lawsuit.

[Tweedling]

Go Dan Go! You show 'em!.....wait a minute...... There, I'm better. Nevermind what I said.

[JerseyMike]

At this point, there is nothing to be gained by trashing or exposing Bush. I'd rather build up a candidate I believe in for 2008.

 

You're right, actually. There is, though, something to be lost by continually bashing Bush, because the Republicans are so good at turning the Democrats weapons against themselves and shooting themselves in the proverbial foot.

[Guest Jules]

Your personal feelings about Dan Rather have no purpose in determining the usefulness of exposing the truth about our softy media.

Yeah, but he's such a pud.

[Gobias Industries]

Yeah, but he's such a pud.

 

But it doesn't make a difference.

[bjorn_skurj]

I don

[boywiththorninside]

Ah, but in your original post, you referred to the documents as if you regarded them as inauthentic beyond reasonable doubt. It is that with which I took issue.

 

My concern is less about digging up Bush's Vietnam era indiscretions than with exposing the overy cozy relationship between the administration and the media. This is not something we "should move on" from -- this is a cancer that's eating away at the very core of our democracy. If the government controls the media, which for all intents and purposes they currently do, it only strengthens their ability to commit the sort of outrages we've seen over the past six years. I'm not saying that a truly vigilant, watchdog media necessarily would have changed a whole lot, but they damn sure could have affected public opinion in a way that might have kept Bush from achieving reelection in 2004. It's vitally important that we dismantle the propaganda machine and return it to a responsible, objective news-gathering culture (if it ever was).

That's precisely why this should bother you. We need to break the bonds between the White House and the major media corporations. Until we do that, we're condemned to a world where bad policy is made palatable to the public through a media that refuses to do its job. It is this struggle, I believe, which is at the center of Rather's lawsuit.

 

I do believe the documents were inauthentic. Perhaps not inauthentic beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly by a preponderance of the evidence - Rather's apology (CBS can't verify the document's authenticity), Mapes own communications with CBS before the story aired (she wasn't 100% certain the documents were authentic).

 

I don't know. I can agree with some of your later points, but I also think you're building the lawsuit up to be something that it is not. I personally don't think the lawsuit is about anything other than Dan Rather's legacy. To me, it's all about Dan. Dan thinks he was wronged, and he is intent on setting the record, as he sees it, straight. That the suit may expose aspects of a dangerous media/political nexus is purely incidental. I'm certainly not opposed to exploring this matter, I just think there has to be better platforms than Rather's self-serving suit to address it. That's why when it comes to this story specifically, I'm ready to move on.

 

Courage.

[bjorn_skurj]

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. I'll tell you, though, if I did a story of that magnitude based on documents that turned out to be false, I would sharpen up my pica pole, write my death poem and disembowel myself.

[JerseyMike]

I do believe the documents were inauthentic. Perhaps not inauthentic beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly by a preponderance of the evidence - Rather's apology (CBS can't verify the document's authenticity), Mapes own communications with CBS before the story aired (she wasn't 100% certain the documents were authentic).

 

Just out of curiosity, what does everybody think about the possibility that the false documents were put into circulation by Karl Rove in order to discredit Rather? Because in actuality, the information that was contained in the story was never disputed, but the focus of the story shifted from Bush's National Guard service to Rather's credibility.

[ikol]

Just out of curiosity, what does everybody think about the possibility that the false documents were put into circulation by Karl Rove in order to discredit Rather? Because in actuality, the information that was contained in the story was never disputed, but the focus of the story shifted from Bush's National Guard service to Rather's credibility.

 

Totally.

[mountain bed]

I'm not saying that a truly vigilant, watchdog media necessarily would have changed a whole lot, but they damn sure could have affected public opinion in a way that might have kept Bush from achieving reelection in 2004. It's vitally important that we dismantle the propaganda machine and return it to a responsible, objective news-gathering culture (if it ever was).

That might be the most important point of all. The fact that W was reelected is the most mind-boggling part of the issue. It truly broke the spirit of many.

If you haven't already, I would I highly recommend adding "Manufacturing Consent" jointly written by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman to your reading list. A terrific read if you are interested in matters related to media manipulation in a Democractic society.

I agree. A really great read imo.

[cryptique]

Just out of curiosity, what does everybody think about the possibility that the false documents were put into circulation by Karl Rove in order to discredit Rather? Because in actuality, the information that was contained in the story was never disputed, but the focus of the story shifted from Bush's National Guard service to Rather's credibility.

I'm prepared to believe just about anything about Rove, because I think he's a repugnant being. However, I'm much more prepared to believe that these documents were authentic. The signature was generally accepted to be that of the officer in question. The typewriter conspiracy theorists never made a compelling case, despite all their bluster. In the end, the easiest explanation is that the documents were real.

 

The right-wing noise machine is based on making truths seem false and fallacies seem true. Global warming? Believe in it or not, there is a scientific consensus, but you'd never know it if you were listening to them. WMDs in Iraq? We all know how that came out. Kerry's actions in Vietnam? Suddenly they had people thinking that he somehow ginned up those wounds of his. They understand all too well that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe you. Looking at their attempts to discredit these documents, why wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that this could be another such case?