CBS to Admit Documents Fraudulent

[obby]

http://www.newsmax.com/?j=509743&e=robert@asciofmiami.com&l=143149_HTML&u=9827910

CBS determines that documents it claimed were authentic are fakes. CBS could admit as early as today that documents it used to question President Bush's National Guard service were concocted. More: A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as the possible source says he passed along information to former Sen. Max Cleland, who is working with John Kerry's campaign.

[mindfaqd]

http://www.newsmax.com/?j=509743&e=robert@asciofmiami.com&l=143149_HTML&u=9827910

CBS determines that documents it claimed were authentic are fakes. CBS could admit as early as today that documents it used to question President Bush's National Guard service were concocted. More: A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as the possible source says he passed along information to former Sen. Max Cleland, who is working with John Kerry's campaign.

Will big Dan be the one to air the retraction ?

[funwithtreason]

STATEMENT FROM THE NEWS DIVISION

MAN WHO GAVE CBS NEWS DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES HOW HE OBTAINED THEM; IN TELEVISION INTERVIEW, HE ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY MISLED CBS NEWS PRODUCER

CBS NEWS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, BASED ON SUBSEQUENT REPORTING ON QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT PROVE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE "60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY" REPORT.

CBS NEWS AND CBS MANAGEMENT ARE COMMISSIONING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_264122847.html

[pattbateman]

stupid fucks!

[jtk4]

yeah you should usually check over shit before you report it.

[obby]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/20/124054.shtml

Even though he fucked up I do not think he should resign unless he knew what he was reporting was false.

tisk tisk

[jtk4]

yeah i am sure he would not of reported it if he knew it was fake. At this stage in his career i think people might be doing the leg work for him, and those people should be fired.

[igloo]

yeah i am sure he would not of reported it if he knew it was fake. At this stage in his career i think people might be doing the leg work for him, and those people should be fired.[/QUOT

Or perhaps, Mr Rather was driven by a politcal or ideological agenda....

Oh wait..that's right, there is no liberal or anti-Bush bias in the media or press, especially CBS.....

Only Fox News as a bias

[jtk4]

yeah ok x-files

hey let me risk my career with info i know is fake. Settle down now the whole world does not revolve around dubya. There was life before him and there will be after him (we all hope ) why risk you career which has spanned 4 decades. Like i sure he has people ho do the leg work, they dropped the ball and should be fired.

kinda like the intel world saying iraq had wmd and bush using that info to invade iraq.

[igloo]

yeah ok x-files

hey let me risk my career with info i know is fake. Settle down now the whole world does not revolve around dubya. There was life before him and there will be after him (we all hope ) why risk you career which has spanned 4 decades. Like i sure he has people ho do the leg work, they dropped the ball and should be fired.

kinda like the intel world saying iraq had wmd and bush using that info to invade iraq.

Son, if you do not think there is an anti-Bush bias in the media, join us on planet Earth....

If you do not think the overwhelming majority of the media vote Democrat, you are on Mars

If you do not think Dan Rather has a liberal bias, you do not know Dan Rather....

If you do not consider the possibility that Rather's judgement (and the CBS team) was clouded because of a bias or agenda, you are on Mars.......

I did not say he deliberately went with something that he knowingly knew was false, but to not recognize the situation here is being blind....

And to compare the WMD intel (world intel as you mentioned) to this "intel" is not really worth commenting, and I think you know better

[jtk4]

Do you think he reported material he knew was false?

Big conspiracy. Come on, cut the shit. When all that shit was going down with clinton are you saying it was swept under the rug?Did they not report it?Every fucking day. HE is the fuckin president, whatever he does fake or not will get reported.

[igloo]

Do you think he reported material he knew was false?

Big conspiracy. Come on, cut the shit. When all that shit was going down with clinton are you saying it was swept under the rug?Did they not report it?Every fucking day. HE is the fuckin president, whatever he does fake or not will get reported.

I already just said I do not believe he deliberately reported something he knew was false....I said his judgement may have been clouded, or he did not do his proper homework in a rush to air an anti-Bush story...

And yes he is the President, and things get reported on the President, of course.....but the media also has a responsibility and a privilege to report accurately, and when Newsweek passed on the story, and ABC warned CBS about the source, then Rather should have been careful and skeptical...and Newsweek and ABC News are far from Bush lovers.....

With respects to the Clinton shit, of course they reported on the story..how could they not, it was a LEGITIMATE story.......But this is a story that should not have been reported on--and it would seem it was very easy to pass on it...case closed. Based on Rather's know bias and track record, it is completely legitimate to question his judgement or underlying thinking.

But the Clinton shit, and the reporting of it, does not mean there is not a bias against Bush or an overall liberal bias...Even a NY Times poll ironically showed that one exists...as did other polls and studies...some numbers off the top of my head were like 2/3 of the media vote Democrat, and 80% of the Washington Bureau Chiefs vote Democrat....you don't think that affects how they report?

The other question is--How fucking stupid is the DNC to get behind the story, even if it was true.......Or even worse, if it turns out they were behind it.........The DNC has done an awful job in this campaign

[jtk4]

if you show where they attack other repubs(congress), not the pres, more then democrats then i will believe you. If not the president will always have shit like this. When i talk about clinton i am not even talking about the monica thing i am talking about the stupid whitewater shit. The press would not let it go, it was out there everyday.

Dan should of done his homework, but to say it was just because he, or they, have a thing to get bush i think you are wrong.

[babbo]

hypothertically--so if rather is asked to resign- because he knowingly or UNKNOWINGLY relied on bad information- should we ask bush to do the same??? yes or no?? hypothetically??

[jtk4]

no because bush does not have an agenda

[igloo]

if you show where they attack other repubs(congress), not the pres, more then democrats then i will believe you. If not the president will always have shit like this. When i talk about clinton i am not even talking about the monica thing i am talking about the stupid whitewater shit. The press would not let it go, it was out there everyday.

Dan should of done his homework, but to say it was just because he, or they, have a thing to get bush i think you are wrong.

With respects to media bias, I simply point you to many books and studies that have done on the subject...I too was skeptical at first, but there is overwhelming evidence....

And like I said, it can not be ignored that the majority of the media votes Democrat....we would all like to believe that their beliefs and opinions don't get in the way of their objectivity and reporting, but that is not reality.....

It is certainly your opinion to think Rather did not have an agenda....but I think you are 100% wrong.........he clearly had an agenda which led him to make this monumental, amateur journalistic mistake........and done SIX WEEKS before the election .......

Mr. Rather thought he had a story that could harm President Bush......case closed. And potentially effect the outcome of the election, that is a short 6 weeks away........case closed.

Just wondering, why was Mr. Rather is such a rush to get this story out-----when he admittedly took his time on the Swift Boat Story (he did not even think it was a story until cable news forced his hand)?.........was Mr. Rather simply trying to provide balance, at the price of journalistic integrity? Or was Mr. Rather unprofessionally simply trying to get an anti-Bush story on the air in time to hurt the President?

Also, as I type this, there is a report that the source gave Rather the documents on the condition that Rather would get them to the Kerry camp......if that is true, this is going to get even uglier

[jtk4]

When would this be more a story and get more ratings before or after the elections.

Who would this story benefit more, if it was true, the first person who reprts it or the second.

I think you are confusing the greed for ratings, and the greed to be number one, with biased reporting. He was not the first one to report the swift boats so when he reports it it is "old news" and maybe reluctant to report it. He would take time with that so he could report something that already has not been reported.

Did he jump the gun, yes. Should he have investigated the source, yes. Do you think that he does that anymore, no neither do I. I bet someone who has an agenda said something like report this now, it will be news tomorrow or something. Kinda played his hand for him.

There have been books written on alien abductions does not mean they happened.

[funwithtreason]

(CBS) Below is the text of CBS News Anchor Dan Rather's statement on the documents purportedly written by President Bush's National Guard commander:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml

[igloo]

When would this be more a story and get more ratings before or after the elections.

Who would this story benefit more, if it was true, the first person who reprts it or the second.

I think you are confusing the greed for ratings, and the greed to be number one, with biased reporting. He was not the first one to report the swift boats so when he reports it it is "old news" and maybe reluctant to report it. He would take time with that so he could report something that already has not been reported.

Did he jump the gun, yes. Should he have investigated the source, yes. Do you think that he does that anymore, no neither do I. I bet someone who has an agenda said something like report this now, it will be news tomorrow or something. Kinda played his hand for him.

There have been books written on alien abductions does not mean they happened.

jtk4....I enjoy our discussions, but your defense of Rather is indefensible....

And I think you are a little confused......"I think you are confusing the greed for ratings, and the greed to be number one, with biased reporting. He was not the first one to report the swift boats so when he reports it it is "old news" and maybe reluctant to report it. He would take time with that so he could report something that already has not been reported"

Did you read this after you typed it?....You are kidding right with this?

Dan Rather did not report on the Swift Boats because he felt it was not a credible story, and said he would not have reported on it AT ALL if cable news did not create the groundswell----Did Rather think it was not credible because it was anti-Kerry?........Rather did not report on the Swift Boats initially because it was anti-Kerry...case closed.

Yet Mr. Rather found this pile of bullshit about Bush instantaneously credible, and aired it simply for ratings, to simply be the first?

You are fucking with me?....it took bloggers about two minutes to blow this shit up.

Son--Dan Rather used poor judgement and unprofessional behavior to rush an anti-Bush story to air because he thought it would damage the President....case closed.

With respects to "media bias", instead of just discounting it, go do some reseacrh, and then let me know what you think.....

[jtk4]

what i am saying is that to blame dan for this is silly. He is not the one who investigates these stories. He is about 30 years removed from that type of work. When he got this story I am sure he was fuckin estatic to report it, because he would go down as the person who broke it. Let me put it this way do you think if clinton or kerry was president and the same article came into his hands, argueably (sp) the biggest story of the year, he would not report it. Either way he fucked up i just do not believe he did it out of a " i gotta get bush" type thing.

arguably

arguably

how the fuck do you spell that shit. lol

[igloo]

what i am saying is that to blame dan for this is silly. He is not the one who investigates these stories. He is about 30 years removed from that type of work. When he got this story I am sure he was fuckin estatic to report it, because he would go down as the person who broke it. Let me put it this way do you think if clinton or kerry was president and the same article came into his hands, argueably (sp) the biggest story of the year, he would not report it. Either way he fucked up i just do not believe he did it out of a " i gotta get bush" type thing.

arguably

arguably

how the fuck do you spell that shit. lol

I understand what you are saying, and you hope Rather did not have an agenda, but the evidence and his track record is against him......when you add in the fact that Rather did not want to report AT ALL on the Swift Boat Story because he thought it was not a story, yet thought this pile of bullshit was a story (even though ABC warned him), it should give you serious pause...

Why would Rather be estatic about "breaking" this story, but not the Swift Boat Story?.....because one was anti-Bush and the other is anti-Kerry, that is why......his judgement was completely clouded not because he was going to be "first", but because it was an anti-Bush story (remember ABC and Newsweek passed on it, and Bush's records have been targeted for a decade, yet Rather still went with it)

Add into the mix that Rather has always tilted left, is anti-Bush, and went with this story 6 weeks before the election, and the fish stench is getting worse...

Throw into the mix that Kerr's campaign could be implicated, and you now have a monumental stench....

And quiet frankly, I am not sure if the "original" story was "big"....Rather thought it was big because it was anti-Bush six weeks before an election....but I don't think it got traction until the story broke that the docs were forged....and now it is a "big" story, and the Bush campaign is ironically the estatic ones now...

And the fucking retarded DNC gets behind the story......the public has Bush's four years in office to judge him....did they think this story was going to impact Bush like the Swifties did to Kerry?.....another monumental miscalcualtion by the DNC and Kerry campaign....

Anyway, I guess we beat the shit out of this.....hopefully, this sends a wripple effect to all news organizations to start acting like News organizations....

[funwithtreason]

Igloo... I don't know if you read it yet but I posted a statement by Dan Rather and within the link posted there is an interview on video I think you should watch. CBS also agreed to do an internal investigation of which Dan Rather welcomed. He should've researched more for the integrety of the Bush memos for reliability before prematurely reporting it. That was a huge mistake in Rather's part. With that said, he should resign but to be assured he will go in obscurity.

I don't want to make you scroll back up on this thread so I'm going to pass you the link in here...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml

[igloo]

Igloo... I don't know if you read it yet but I posted a statement by Dan Rather and within the link posted there is an interview on video I think you should watch. CBS also agreed to do an internal investigation of which Dan Rather welcomed. He should've researched more for the integrety of the Bush memos for reliability before prematurely reporting it. That was a huge mistake in Rather's part. With that said, he should resign but to be assured he will go in obscurity.

I don't want to make you scroll back up on this thread so I'm going to pass you the link in here...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml

Thanks..I read it...

[igloo]

This is real bad: Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart

By Kevin Johnson, Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.

John Kerry aide Joe Lockhart, shown here in 1998, chatted with a former Texas National Guard officer, whose number CBS provided.

AP

Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election. This "poses a real danger to the potential credibility ... of a news organization," said Aly Colón, a news ethicist at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

"At Burkett's request, we gave his (telephone) number to the campaign," said Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president.

CBS would not discuss the propriety of the network serving as a conduit between Burkett and the Kerry campaign. "It was not part of any deal" to obtain the documents, West said, declining to elaborate.

But Burkett said Monday that his contact with Lockhart was indeed part of an "understanding" with CBS. Burkett said his interest in contacting the campaign was to offer advice in responding to Republican criticisms about Kerry's Vietnam service. It had nothing to do with the documents, he said.

"My interest was to get the attention of the national (campaign) to defend against the ... attacks," Burkett said, adding that he also talked to former Georgia senator Max Cleland and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean during the past 45 days. "Neither the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign had anything to do with the documents," he said.

Lockhart said he phoned Burkett at the number provided by CBS. Lockhart also said that the documents never came up in his conversation with Burkett. Lockhart said the conversation lasted just a few minutes. "It's possible that the producer said they had documents" before his conversation with Burkett, he said.

At the end of the conversation, Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his interest, and there was no further contact with him. Asked why he called Burkett, Lockhart said he talks to "a lot of people."

"I called you, didn't I?"

The White House said CBS' contact with Lockhart was inappropriate. "The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry's campaign to attack the president is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director.

[obby]

yeah i am sure he would not of reported it if he knew it was fake. At this stage in his career i think people might be doing the leg work for him, and those people should be fired.[/QUOT

Or perhaps, Mr Rather was driven by a politcal or ideological agenda....

Oh wait..that's right, there is no liberal or anti-Bush bias in the media or press, especially CBS.....

Only Fox News as a bias

Sacastic but true to the point!!!!!!!

With respects to media bias, I simply point you to many books and studies that have done on the subject...I too was skeptical at first, but there is overwhelming evidence....

And like I said, it can not be ignored that the majority of the media votes Democrat....we would all like to believe that their beliefs and opinions don't get in the way of their objectivity and reporting, but that is not reality.....

It is certainly your opinion to think Rather did not have an agenda....but I think you are 100% wrong.........he clearly had an agenda which led him to make this monumental, amateur journalistic mistake........and done SIX WEEKS before the election .......

Mr. Rather thought he had a story that could harm President Bush......case closed. And potentially effect the outcome of the election, that is a short 6 weeks away........case closed.

Just wondering, why was Mr. Rather is such a rush to get this story out-----when he admittedly took his time on the Swift Boat Story (he did not even think it was a story until cable news forced his hand)?.........was Mr. Rather simply trying to provide balance, at the price of journalistic integrity? Or was Mr. Rather unprofessionally simply trying to get an anti-Bush story on the air in time to hurt the President?

Also, as I type this, there is a report that the source gave Rather the documents on the condition that Rather would get them to the Kerry camp......if that is true, this is going to get even uglier

Mess with the Elephants.....You get the tusks!!!!!!