The Bell Tolls: Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect

Dan Rather has come out an said what everyone has already concluded. The documents are suspect. Contrary to what CBS was claiming as recently as last night, Rather had this to say:

If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "

"This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast. "I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that."

"I think this is very, very serious," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "When Dan tells me these documents are not forgeries, I believe him. But somehow we've got to find a way to show people these documents are not forgeries." Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS.
Rather

This has to be one of the the all time reporting blunders. The memos source reamain a mystery and CBS is vowing to look into it. Huh, the horse is already out of the barn anyway. You know I almost feel sorry for Dan....... Scratch that.

The authenticity of the documents themselves are not as important as the content in them:

CBS News reported that the documents it first broadcast last week on "60 Minutes II" appear to be forgeries to the woman who would have typed the original memos in 1972 and 1973.

But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary, said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

"I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.

She told the Morning News, "I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it."

In the memos, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugar coat" the future president's performance evaluations and that Bush failed to meet performance standards, including getting a required physical exam.

Rather defended his reporting on air Wednesday saying the controversy that followed last week's report did not challenge the "heart" of the story.

He said that a body of reporting, not just the memos in question, show the future president received preferential treatment to get into the Texas Air National Guard and then failed to fulfill his obligations while an airman.

www.cnn.com...

Yeah, speaking out like that right after the interview he obviously knew but held his opinion close to the vest until after the Secretary interview on 60 Minutes. Ratings and all. He's just old and still on 70's network time where you used to get 24 hours between cycles. He's out of touch with the new Internet and on-line game.

His "concession" was on Washington Post On-Line within hours as was the CBS "fall guy" Bill Burkett (doc faxer from Abilene) outed by the BloggersforBush "independent" investigation.

Washington Post on-line editor James Taranto just recapped the whole thing on O'Reilly, and suggested this was the final death blow to "elite liberal media" and we all have bloggers to thank.

So there's confirmation of the media new world order. Right wing blogs.

Its pretty clear that the old guard is not net savvy. You remeber Piere Salinger?? (sp) who used a dubious web source to claim TWA 800 was shot down? Both sides have thier bloggers and had he spend a modicum of time reserching it he would have still had a great story with the secretary who would have come off as very credible IMHO, but she too is tainted by the memos.

Originally posted by 27jd
The authenticity of the documents themselves are not as important as the content in them:

Yes, but considering they were forged, can you blindly follow the rest of the story? Well they lied about the documents, but I swear the contents are the truth. You noticed, and I replayed the interview on my Replay box to be sure, she never out and out said they were true. She said they looked familiar.

I...almost...feel that they wanted to put their story out their but had no verification. So, the guy from Texas, who's have an axe to grind with Bush since 1997, made up documents to supply verification to his story.

At this point I really don't care what Kerry did in 1969-70 or what Bush did in 1972. Let's get back to the 21st century and the issues.
Someone should tell Dan to retire. Tomorrow, effective yesterday.

Originally posted by FredT
Its pretty clear that the old guard is not net savvy. You remeber Piere Salinger?? (sp) who used a dubious web source to claim TWA 800 was shot down? Both sides have thier bloggers and had he spend a modicum of time reserching it he would have still had a great story with the secretary who would have come off as very credible IMHO, but she too is tainted by the memos.

Both side have thier bloggers, true. But I'm seeing less and less "side" for so called liberal Media to report from. And if they still exist...(NY Times maybe) do you think they can get away with citing "several news sources" and mean partisan blogs?

Anyway, like Fox always do...O'Reilly set it up and Hannity is spiking the story. More "the death of liberal media" talking points on H&C now.

They are using this issue for ulterior motives IMO. If that's what CBS was guilty of, then so is right wing media today.

The "Burkett did it" thing is just bugging me coming from BlogsforBush. If the KerryEdwards blog traced it to Karl Rove, would it be on TV?

Originally posted by RANT
The "Burkett did it" thing is just bugging me coming from BlogsforBush. If the KerryEdwards blog traced it to Karl Rove, would it be on TV?

It would be on TV. Hannity just cited "outragous claims" Burkett posted on Democratic Underground that Bush was AWOL days before the CBS story broke as more "proof" he's the culprit.

Don't you see what's happening here? [insert silent scream]!!!

If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story

Um, that story broke a week ago. I think you missed the boat on that one Dan.

Originally posted by vatar

If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story

Um, that story broke a week ago. I think you missed the boat on that one Dan.

Yeah, Bill Bennet just slammed him for that too on H&C...saying all the scoops are broke by "geeks in their pajamas at 4 am" now.

Network old guys really don't get it yet.

The election is a staged event. It no longer has much to do with what we need to know to intelligently vote for President. The media has ruined politics just like they ruin other aspects of American life.

I HAVE to assume that neither candidate has much to offer in the way of anwers to the issues at stake. To me, it proves that the President is in the Oval Office all right, but is not really the Leader of the Free World. There many people behind him, pulling his strings. Regardless of his party affiliation.

So, should it surprise that we get this smoke screen from both sides---events from 30+ years ago? IRL, how many people we know are judged on their actions from 30+ years ago?

And, a break in the action to say:

...by the BloggersforBush "independent" investigation.

BloggersforBush + independent = FOX news + fair and balanced

Am I wrong here?