What’s the Frequency Kenneth ????

[Rich in Ohio]

Well it looks like danny blather has some splannin to do. Late last night in a closed door meeting he was more then likely bent over a chair and given 30 lashes on his bare bottom. (Film at 11:00)

 

Oh well, the sooner CBS can wipe the egg from their face on this one the better. Maybe in a few months people will have forgotten and they will then again mindlessly follow the rhetoric that comes from blathers evening news desk on a nightly basis.

 

Ahh just think within a few months we will be free of both brokaw and blather, now if we could only do something about that damn Canadian.

[gmac17]

the fact that they dug in and went from "the memos are real" to "the memos are accurate" to "the story is true" is mind boggling to me.

[OnTheRocks]

John Kerry BLEW IT!

 

He sat back like a jackass with a full house and folded.

He kept his fingers crossed that this whole report was going to blow up in Bush's face.

 

Now it looks like his campaign may have been in the know about the whole thing and it is going to backfire on him.

 

He should have come out on day one and denounced the report and challanged Bush to put all the mud slinging aside and talk about issues.

 

He would have come out smelling like a rose. Instead...he smells like something else.

[Rich in Ohio]

Finally, Blather comes clean. In my opinion it is about time.

 

I wonder if he will now expose his source and go after his credibility. Or if CBS will investigate any potential ties between the loser who faxed these docs to balther and the DNC. Hmmm, I only see this getting better for the good guys.

 

bravo to CBS for not continueing to live in dannys dream world. maybe now someday they can regain 10 or 15% of the credibility they once had. I give credit to them for at least taking the first step.

 

 

EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

 

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.

[DC Tom]

Finally, Blather comes clean. In my opinion it is about time.

 

I wonder if he will now expose his source and go after his credibility. Or if CBS will investigate any potential ties between the loser who faxed these docs to balther and the DNC. Hmmm, I only see this getting better for the good guys.

 

bravo to CBS for not continueing to live in dannys dream world. maybe now someday they can regain 10 or 15% of the credibility they once had. I give credit to them for at least taking the first step.

EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

 

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.

38288[/snapback]

 

Where'd you get this from?

 

I particularly liked this line:

 

"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."

 

Danny boy, you're supposed to do all that research and reach that conclusion before you run the story. It's called journalism, you prick.

[Rich in Ohio]

Where'd you get this from?

 

I particularly liked this line:

 

"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."

 

Danny boy, you're supposed to do all that research and reach that conclusion before you run the story.  It's called journalism, you prick.

38354[/snapback]

 

 

This is a statement that was released by blather today.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Are you making a hateful reference (title line) to someone's violent misfortune?

 

I don't think that becomes you Rich?

 

You are too much a positive, forgiving, compassionate, forward thinking person to make a negative joke.

 

 

Anyway, he should have come clean right away. I guess egos get in the way? Go figure, in the world of "Anchor Gods?"

 

 

Now when will the administration check its ego at the door?

 

I find it very ironic how this story mimics policy.

 

Does anybody else see the irony?

[Rich in Ohio]

Are you making a hateful reference (title line) to someone's violent misfortune?

 

I don't think that becomes you Rich?

 

You are too much a positive, forgiving, compassionate, forward thinking person to make a negative joke.

 

 

Anyway, he should have come clean right away.  I guess egos get in the way?  Go figure, in the world of "Anchor Gods?"   

Now when will the administration check its ego at the door?

 

I find it very ironic how this story mimics policy.

 

Does anybody else see the irony?

38376[/snapback]

 

Actually I do see the irony. Do you think that CBS and other news agencys may see it as well?

[DC Tom]

This is a statement that was released by blather today.

38356[/snapback]

 

I figured...but did he read it on the TV or radio? Release it to AP? Post it to CBS's or 60 Minutes' site? I'm not doubting you, I just want to know where you got it from...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Where'd you get this from?

 

I particularly liked this line:

 

"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."

 

Danny boy, you're supposed to do all that research and reach that conclusion before you run the story.  It's called journalism, you prick.

38354[/snapback]

 

Actually, Tom, I would expect something along those lines being said from a certain "pedantic, supercillious, anal orfice" after finding out he was had while defending bad data...

 

Are you taking note?

 

Again, does anybody else see the irony here?

 

Egos are a funny thing!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Actually I do see the irony. Do you think that CBS and other news agencys may see it as well?

38382[/snapback]

 

I hope so.

 

I hope the intelligence community and the executive branch that acts on misinformation also takes note.

[DC Tom]

Actually, Tom, I would expect something along those lines being said from a certain "pedantic, supercillious, anal orfice" after finding out he was had while defending bad data...

 

Are you taking note? 

 

Again, does anybody else see the irony here?

 

Egos are a funny thing!

 

38387[/snapback]

 

Actually, I'd simply say "Whoops! I !@#$ed up. My bad." As I have done before.

 

Oh, and :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

 

 

[Rich in Ohio]

I figured...but did he read it on the TV or radio?  Release it to AP?  Post it to CBS's or 60 Minutes' site?  I'm not doubting you, I just want to know where you got it from...

38384[/snapback]

 

 

Here is a link to the story i the Wash Post but it is bascially everywhere now.

 

Wash Post story

[Benjamin Franklin]

Canadians are such losers- who would even listen to one. "Blather" he said! Good one.

[Chilly]

Losers also resurrect threads from 2004.