NEWS: CBS Admits it Cannot Authenticate Bush "Memos"

I predict Dan Rather is seeing his last Presidential election as an anchorman and will announce his retirement shortly before or after this upcoming election. It would be the right thing to do.

These documents are clearly forged and regardless if they�re based on reality they are a forgery. The ends do justify the means for CBS apparently.

I think by now everyone assumes both the boys from skull & bones had help staying out of combat in the Vietnam war.

CBS just screwed themselves, who cares (except them). This just brings internet news up a notch & the longtime news spinners down a notch.

Let's get on with the real issues and if we get lucky neither one of these jerks will get elected.





[edit on 20-9-2004 by outsider]

Amazing. Given the right incentives, the Bush Administration CAN identify forged documents!

As a journalist, it is disturbing to see $$$ get in the way of journalistic ethics...money for ratings, money to give to politicians, money that the corporate bean counters think is more valuable than their journalistic integrity, or that of their "face" dan rather's reputation, and the once proud news magazine "60 Min" that used to strike FEAR into people when their secratary buzzed into the office to tell you 60 min was in the lobby looking for you.

Mabey this should be a wake up call for network executives everwhere...
journalism, (news), isnt about the ratings, its not about making money, its not about politics...news is supposed to be OBJECTIVE...its about your reputation, credabillity, and things that money cant purchase.

Thankyou CBS for embarrasing all of your employees everywhere that now have to live with the taunts and jeers of others for working for the "obviously liberal, slanted news" that is now your broadcast. This whole story was a VERY thin veiled attempt at slandering the President during an election year, and BARELY qualifies as yellow journalism.

Ive seen people fired for far less grievious of an error of news judgment, and would EXPECT to see at least a producers head roll. Dan Rather as managing editor of 60 min is very culpable in this as the glaring danger spots with this story should have been red flags for caution.

The almost transparent politics of CBS have now been shown to the nation and the world...we all know who upper managment at CBS wants to win the election.... why would they even APPROVE of such a charged story to be aired unless they have an adgenda against Bush? Especially as they knew 2 things....ONE, this service record was OLD news from the last election, one which Bush's political opponents have been trying for YEARS to pin him on, yet CBS thinks they are just handed the holy grail on this story? Why did they think they had something his worst political enimies didnt, or hadnt tried already?
TWO, THEY COULDNT VALIDATE THE SOURCE OF THE STORY....this is SUCH a no brainer risk that to run with unverified source info is a huge liabillity waiting to happen. How does a story like this get to air without intensive attention to detail unless you have a MOTIVE to want this story to air, and you think its worth the risk?

Until network executives stop being cookie-cutter news palces, where the teasable story that fits the demographics is LESS important than actual news....where no amount of money raised from the ratings, can buy your credibillity, the news groups will keep fighting over an ever shrinking piece of the tv viewers diet, by feeding the same type of spoon fed pablum that the others do, and not care that MOST viewers think that your credibillity is non existant.

Here's a good question, if all those media consultants are soo smart...then why arent they running the networks?

Mabey this was a secret deal betweer the Kerry camp..."hey if you do this memo thing for us and we win...all those janet jackson boob fines will go away, heck we'll even get off Sterns butt too."
I think i have that memo around here somewhere....

Originally posted by CazMedia
As a journalist, it is disturbing to see $$$ get in the way of journalistic ethics...money for ratings, money to give to politicians, money that the corporate bean counters think is more valuable than their journalistic integrity, or that of their "face" dan rather's reputation, and the once proud news magazine "60 Min" that used to strike FEAR into people when their secratary buzzed into the office to tell you 60 min was in the lobby looking for you.

Mabey this should be a wake up call for network executives everwhere...
journalism, (news), isnt about the ratings, its not about making money, its not about politics...news is supposed to be OBJECTIVE...its about your reputation, credabillity, and things that money cant purchase.

Thankyou CBS for embarrasing all of your employees everywhere that now have to live with the taunts and jeers of others for working for the "obviously liberal, slanted news" that is now your broadcast. This whole story was a VERY thin veiled attempt at slandering the President during an election year, and BARELY qualifies as yellow journalism.

Ive seen people fired for far less grievious of an error of news judgment, and would EXPECT to see at least a producers head roll. Dan Rather as managing editor of 60 min is very culpable in this as the glaring danger spots with this story should have been red flags for caution.

The almost transparent politics of CBS have now been shown to the nation and the world...we all know who upper managment at CBS wants to win the election.... why would they even APPROVE of such a charged story to be aired unless they have an adgenda against Bush? Especially as they knew 2 things....ONE, this service record was OLD news from the last election, one which Bush's political opponents have been trying for YEARS to pin him on, yet CBS thinks they are just handed the holy grail on this story? Why did they think they had something his worst political enimies didnt, or hadnt tried already?
TWO, THEY COULDNT VALIDATE THE SOURCE OF THE STORY....this is SUCH a no brainer risk that to run with unverified source info is a huge liabillity waiting to happen. How does a story like this get to air without intensive attention to detail unless you have a MOTIVE to want this story to air, and you think its worth the risk?

Until network executives stop being cookie-cutter news palces, where the teasable story that fits the demographics is LESS important than actual news....where no amount of money raised from the ratings, can buy your credibillity, the news groups will keep fighting over an ever shrinking piece of the tv viewers diet, by feeding the same type of spoon fed pablum that the others do, and not care that MOST viewers think that your credibillity is non existant.

Here's a good question, if all those media consultants are soo smart...then why arent they running the networks?

Mabey this was a secret deal betweer the Kerry camp..."hey if you do this memo thing for us and we win...all those janet jackson boob fines will go away, heck we'll even get off Sterns butt too."
I think i have that memo around here somewhere....

Dude this 'news' is on TV. It's free. Guess what you get for free. #. Real news is stuff you discover on your own, or stuff you think you can believe after viewing multiple sources.

[edit on 22-9-2004 by mockan]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Bush was an uncommitted shirker. Forged documents were not necessary to demonstrate this under the circumstances.

Right. And he is a satan worshipper, the anti-christ, etc, etc...
You KNOW that if this was a forged document about Kerry, this would all be a much bigger matter. Talk about spin.

CBS News says Documents Not Authentic

Sorry, folks, that is not what CBS said. This thread is a good example of "fish Story" dynamics. It gets bigger and better with each retelling.

Well it looks like I called it right Mr. Rather called it quits.

Brent Bozell, who runs the conservative Media Research Center, attributed Rather's departure to "the loss of credibility" over the National Guard story. "What made it worse was the 10 days of denial by Dan Rather. He was starting to look bizarre toward the end."

story.news.yahoo.com.../washpost/20041124/ts_washpost/a7313_2004nov23

Does it make any sense that after the document debacle that Rather would step down from the anchor desk and continue as an investigative reporter? That makes no sense whatsoever. Does he think he will gain back his credibility?