sfladave Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Then how much faith can you put into Buffalo News or AP reporters stories about RB controversies or statements? What comes to mind right away is McGahee's statement to AP about being a back up, was it totally taken out of context? ps. The democrats and the liberal media really !@#$ed this one up! What were they thinking?
BillnutinHouston Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 I wouldn't trust the Buffalo News or Roch Dem & Chronicle to soak up my dog's pee.
The Poojer Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 in dan rathers (weak)defense, he did come out and say that proving the documents to be false or true is a very tough task. of course if there is the slightest chance that they are false then shame on him and the rest of the media to report it before all the facts are checked. Then how much faith can you put into Buffalo News or AP reporters stories about RB controversies or statements? What comes to mind right away is McGahee's statement to AP about being a back up, was it totally taken out of context? ps. The democrats and the liberal media really !@#$ed this one up! What were they thinking? 33011[/snapback]
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Hey look Poojer (fresh meat) comes over to the dark side.
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 in dan rathers (weak)defense, he did come out and say that proving the documents to be false or true is a very tough task. of course if there is the slightest chance that they are false then shame on him and the rest of the media to report it before all the facts are checked. 33027[/snapback] So why run the story? Oh yeah, because Dan Rather is a partisan hack who cares more about his politics than his journalistic credibility. Rest assured, had this been a memo about John Kerry it would have NEVER seen the light of day. Remember when CBS News reported on Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese while the war was still going on and he was still a member of the reserves? NO? Well that's because they didn't report it. It's detailed in "Unfit for Command" - yet they give Kitty Kelly face time (the Today Show has had her on 3 days in a row - and yes I know Today in not a CBS show).
Buftex Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 So why run the story? Oh yeah, because Dan Rather is a partisan hack who cares more about his politics than his journalistic credibility. Rest assured, had this been a memo about John Kerry it would have NEVER seen the light of day. Remember when CBS News reported on Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese while the war was still going on and he was still a member of the reserves? NO? Well that's because they didn't report it. It's detailed in "Unfit for Command" - yet they give Kitty Kelly face time (the Today Show has had her on 3 days in a row - and yes I know Today in not a CBS show). 33047[/snapback] I don't know, I watch a fair amount of the "liberal media" and I saw Kerry' meeting with the North Vietnamese referenced to many many times. Honestly, I can't remember if CBS reported on it specifically, but CNN, ABC and NBC all did. I think we are in dangerous times when the networks (FOX included) continue to blur the lines between what they are reporting as news, what is specualtive "information", and what is entertaimnent. If Kitty Kelly is given face time on "Today Show", it may be some political agenda by a network, but it may also be that her book, like many of her other trash "biographies" will likely top the best sellers lists. I do find it interesting that the military secretary who is insisting that these actual documents are bogus, also turns around and says that the content of what the forged documents say are truthful. It almost sounds like someone got a hold of many documents and piecemealed the content together, to make their case stronger. If that is indeed what happened, shame on them.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I don't know, I watch a fair amount of the "liberal media" and I saw Kerry' meeting with the North Vietnamese referenced to many many times. Honestly, I can't remember if CBS reported on it specifically, but CNN, ABC and NBC all did. I think we are in dangerous times when the networks (FOX included) continue to blur the lines between what they are reporting as news, what is specualtive "information", and what is entertaimnent. If Kitty Kelly is given face time on "Today Show", it may be some political agenda by a network, but it may also be that her book, like many of her other trash "biographies" will likely top the best sellers lists. I do find it interesting that the military secretary who is insisting that these actual documents are bogus, also turns around and says that the content of what the forged documents say are truthful. It almost sounds like someone got a hold of many documents and piecemealed the content together, to make their case stronger. If that is indeed what happened, shame on them. 33077[/snapback] 3 days? 3 DAYS? IN A ROW? With the same person? No one should get 3 days in a row if they didn't cure cancer. I am not the best person to speak on network or cable news - I don't watch more than a couple of minutes a week of that crap and haven't for years. I didn't even know the NV story existed until I read the book.
Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 but it may also be that her book, like many of her other trash "biographies" will likely top the best sellers lists. 33077[/snapback] Is there anyone else that finds that comment disturbing. This country has lost it's intellect.
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 It bears repeating - CBS logic: Who cares if the memoes are authentic? It's their content that matters! In my wildest dreams, I never thought any mainstream media source would drop this low. Propping up the content of fake memoes with an old woman who didn't type them (and admits she hates Bush) but says she agrees with the content. HOW... THE HELL..... DID THIS HAPPEN? There are so many things wrong here, I can't even type them all. And Paula Zahn (CNN's best airhead) even asked Andrew Sullivan an hour ago why the content (of the memoes) wasn't important just because the memoes were fake! Sullivan practically slapped himself in the forehead and clearly couldn't believe she had just asked that. I honestly can't believe it either.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 And Paula Zahn (CNN's best airhead) even asked Andrew Sullivan an hour ago why the content (of the memoes) wasn't important just because the memoes were fake!33117[/snapback] That's so dumb that I'd think you were lying...if I hadn't read even stupider stevestojan here on an almost daily basis. I've got to start following this story more closely. It's developing significant implications for the "independence" of American media...
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 That's so dumb that I'd think you were lying...if I hadn't read even stupider stevestojan here on an almost daily basis. I've got to start following this story more closely. It's developing significant implications for the "independence" of American media... 33123[/snapback] I swear to God I almost screamed. We're in the bizarro world right now. Sullivan's response was something like: "It's journalism 101. Sources that are false cannot be cited!" Paula Zahn and the two other people in the universe who couldn't come to that conclusion themselves were enlightened.
erynthered Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Is there anyone else that finds that comment disturbing. This country has lost it's intellect. 33101[/snapback] LOST??? Come on Jim. I know I can get away with......Lets see, ummm......newspapers written at a seventh grade level ought to tell you. Ahhh, it's past the dumbing down of America. Their here.
KOKBILLS Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Then how much faith can you put into Buffalo News or AP reporters stories about RB controversies or statements? What comes to mind right away is McGahee's statement to AP about being a back up, was it totally taken out of context? ps. The democrats and the liberal media really !@#$ed this one up! What were they thinking? 33011[/snapback] No big surprise...The Charlotte Disturber is yet another unapologetic Liberal Rag that I refuse to read (except the Sports Page of coarse). Thank God for Radio! I get Rush (when I can listen), but even better I get a Local Charlotte Show from 3-6 with an awesome Conservative Host named Jason Lewis. He's originally from Minnesota I believe and the Man is fantastic, especially when it comes to calling out the Local Lefty Rag they call a "News" paper... Sometimes I really can't believe how outwardly biased most News media is, but I'm almost numb to it now....which is exactly what they want!! B)
spidey Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 No big surprise...The Charlotte Disturber is yet another unapologetic Liberal Rag that I refuse to read (except the Sports Page of coarse). Thank God for Radio! I get Rush (when I can listen), but even better I get a Local Charlotte Show from 3-6 with an awesome Conservative Host named Jason Lewis. He's originally from Minnesota I believe and the Man is fantastic, especially when it comes to calling out the Local Lefty Rag they call a "News" paper... Sometimes I really can't believe how outwardly biased most News media is, but I'm almost numb to it now....which is exactly what they want!! B) 33147[/snapback] And Rush is always full of the truth or is that **** with him I keep getting them confused
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 No big surprise...The Charlotte Disturber is yet another unapologetic Liberal Rag that I refuse to read (except the Sports Page of coarse). Thank God for Radio! I get Rush (when I can listen), but even better I get a Local Charlotte Show from 3-6 with an awesome Conservative Host named Jason Lewis. He's originally from Minnesota I believe and the Man is fantastic, especially when it comes to calling out the Local Lefty Rag they call a "News" paper... Sometimes I really can't believe how outwardly biased most News media is, but I'm almost numb to it now....which is exactly what they want!! B) 33147[/snapback] Oh there you go. Rush is such a refreshing dose of moral and ethical media reporting. He is so far wacked and loves himself so much, that all I hear is wahwahwah (my best Peanuts teacher impression). He and Moore petty much lok and sound the same to me.
KOKBILLS Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Oh there you go. Rush is such a refreshing dose of moral and ethical media reporting. He is so far wacked and loves himself so much, that all I hear is wahwahwah (my best Peanuts teacher impression). He and Moore petty much lok and sound the same to me. 33154[/snapback] I admit Rush is out there on an island quite a bit like Moore, and this Lewis guy in Charlotte is FAR superior to Rush (probably because he's Conservative 1st, Repulican 2nd). But I love the way you guys get all riled up when Rush's name is mentioned. McNabb Fans are ya???
Paco Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 No big surprise...The Charlotte Disturber is yet another unapologetic Liberal Rag that I refuse to read (except the Sports Page of coarse). Thank God for Radio! I get Rush (when I can listen), but even better I get a Local Charlotte Show from 3-6 with an awesome Conservative Host named Jason Lewis. He's originally from Minnesota I believe and the Man is fantastic, especially when it comes to calling out the Local Lefty Rag they call a "News" paper... Sometimes I really can't believe how outwardly biased most News media is, but I'm almost numb to it now....which is exactly what they want!! B) 33147[/snapback] When the LA Times, which I had read regularly despite it's clearly left tilt, came out with the "groping Arnold" story a day or two before the recall election, that was it for me. There is no right or wrong to them. My new paper, the OC Register, ran a story at one point saying the Times lost over a million subscribers after pulling that stunt. Surprisingly, the Register...dab smack in the middle of California Republican Central...does a good job of presenting both sides. I know because I get pissed at them sometimes.
TigerJ Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 The interesting thing is that it was going to be impossible for CBS to keep from being found out, given the challenges to the claim of authenticity. In the end, by reporting the story and then having to admit the memos may be bogus, CBS probably helps the Bush campaign because of backlash against the liberal media.
Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 LOST???Come on Jim. I know I can get away with......Lets see, ummm......newspapers written at a seventh grade level ought to tell you. Ahhh, it's past the dumbing down of America. Their here. 33131[/snapback] The question is when did it lose its intellect? How many times have people used their for they're, your for you're. My new favorite is: "there's too many posters on this board who mess up the English language on a daily basis." The best part will be that the majority of the posters here will be scratching their heads thinking, "so what's wrong with that sentence?"
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I watched 60 minutes tonight and Dan Rather interviewed the old lady who was the secretary to the supposed writer of the memos. She states that she did not type them, that there are several items in the memo that point to them being bogus but that "similar" memos were written. She is then given time to state her opinions on how she feels about Bush and his service in the National Guard. WTF!! This is really hard for me to digest...A top news agency reports on bogus documents but then says it's ok because there probably were real memos that said something similar. If that is sufficient proof for a story, how can we believe anything that we see reported on CBS!
Recommended Posts