gmac17 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 On the news they just said "CBS is confident that the content of the memos is accurate"...hmmm....looks like they are trying to hedge.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 On the news they just said "CBS is confident that the content of the memos is accurate"...hmmm....looks like they are trying to hedge.... 33001[/snapback] In other words, they whipped up some fakes that were in line with what they believed about the President's past or didn't bother checking the authenticity of some memoes dropped off to them because they liked what the memoes said. Of course they're confident about the content! It's the same content they've had in every anti-Bush hit piece they've put out on 60 Minutes for the last 2 years. The 'car Rosen in slow motion' analogy fits perfectly. The documents are riddled with errors and every 'defense' CBS barfs up is riddled with circular logic. Way to end your career, Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 and now this interview - doing whatever they can to keep the story going, but making barely a mention of the fogeries - in fact they just used the word "recreations"....and now they are going on about "but nobody every said anything about the content of the story...." rather is digging in and looking worse and worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 CBS logic: Who cares if the memoes are authentic? It's their content that matters!!! I honestly can't think of anything CBS could do to make things worse that they haven't already done. Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 CBS logic: Who cares if the memoes are authentic? It's their content that matters!!! I honestly can't think of anything CBS could do to make things worse that they haven't already done. Idiots. 33110[/snapback] Anyone remember the good old days when the media outlets just reported the news instead of trying to make it? Irrespective of the status of the documents, CBS's continuing performance is shameful on that point alone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Anyone remember the good old days when the media outlets just reported the news instead of trying to make it? Irrespective of the status of the documents, CBS's continuing performance is shameful on that point alone... 33120[/snapback] Tom I think they've just gotten worse, much worse. I dont even watch the news anymore on TV. stevestojan, I cant even remember last time I watched Network news program. But they had ther slants back years ago too. How far back do you want to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Tom I think they've just gotten worse, much worse. I dont even watch the news anymore on TV. stevestojan, I cant even remember last time I watched Network news program. But they had ther slants back years ago too. How far back do you want to go? 33136[/snapback] I was thinking pre-Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein's investigative reporting abilities notwithstanding, their reporting on Watergate probably marks the first time reporters truly became the story, rather than just the people relating it to the public. I was only three or four at the time, so I'm going strictly by historical perspective on that. But certainly in MY lifetime, the tendency has been for reporters to try to make themselves as big as or bigger than the story their reporting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 You know I actually watched a few minutes of Rather justifying his stevestojan tonight on 60 min II. He went on some diatribe about him still believing the documents and there content true. They will honestly continue researching the facts and the documents, and if something changes they will "honestly" report it. I don't think I'll hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I was thinking pre-Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein's investigative reporting abilities notwithstanding, their reporting on Watergate probably marks the first time reporters truly became the story, rather than just the people relating it to the public. I was only three or four at the time, so I'm going strictly by historical perspective on that. But certainly in MY lifetime, the tendency has been for reporters to try to make themselves as big as or bigger than the story their reporting... 33143[/snapback] The movie "network" was a good example of how network news has evolved into exactly what you describe. I remember watching "Walter" when I was a kid. Thinking back, I think he also had his slant in his reporting. And he admits to it today. W&B were deffenitly the turning point. Down hill from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 The movie "network" was a good example of how network news has evolved into exactly what you describe. I remember watching "Walter" when I was a kid. Thinking back, I think he also had his slant in his reporting. And he admits to it today. W&B were deffenitly the turning point. Down hill from there. 33162[/snapback] Cronkite had a "slant". So'd Murrow, reporting from London during the Blitz (a pro-British slant, obviously...I strongly doubt he gave equal billing to Luftwaffe pilots). Slanted reporting goes WAY back. Reporters making the news, though...that's a new development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Cronkite had a "slant". So'd Murrow, reporting from London during the Blitz (a pro-British slant, obviously...I strongly doubt he gave equal billing to Luftwaffe pilots). Slanted reporting goes WAY back. Reporters making the news, though...that's a new development. 33170[/snapback] Well I think I'd "raTHer" have an enima, then watch network news, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I was thinking pre-Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein's investigative reporting abilities notwithstanding, their reporting on Watergate probably marks the first time reporters truly became the story, rather than just the people relating it to the public. I was only three or four at the time, so I'm going strictly by historical perspective on that. But certainly in MY lifetime, the tendency has been for reporters to try to make themselves as big as or bigger than the story their reporting... 33143[/snapback] This is actually very perceptive, according to a documentary I had seen a few years ago regarding the media and the way it trusts and reports on public officials. At one point, one commentator said (and I paraphrase here)..."Watergate changed everything. There was always a trust between the media and elected officials. Watergate broke that trust, and there has been hell to pay ever since." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts