spidey Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Just suppose that FOX News ran a bogus news story about john kerry that stated that he did something that could only be collaborated by the use of forged documents that were given to them by a republican supporter who had previously expressed his complete distain for john kerry. Then when the fact was exposed that the documents that are the backbone of the story are complete fakes FOX News managing editor Brit Hume came on the air and forcefully defended the story and the documents. Essentially placing his entire reputation on the fact that these documents are real and putting up a stone wall when questioned about the sorce of the forged documents. Then when the reality of the situation proves that the documents are indeed forged and the story has no basis at all, the managing editor of FOX News (Brit Hume) comes out with a statement that say “ Even though the documents are forged the premise of the story is still true” how much credibility do you think he would still have? I see it this way. The liberal elite media would be calling for heads to roll at FOX News if not the total elimination of the network based on the facts that they lied, they betrayed us, they played on our fears. They would cover this story 24/7 365 until their eyes started to bleed. It would become part of their advertising campaign, and they would have no problems doing so. So my question is, why isn’t CBS held to even half of that standard? Why are we not going after the person who provided these forged documents? Isn’t there some law being broken here? 39787[/snapback] Hmm Swift Boat Veterans??? Does that ring a bell? Or are you so wrapped up in believing that Bush is somehow Reagan reborn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Hmm Swift Boat Veterans??? Does that ring a bell? Or are you so wrapped up in believing that Bush is somehow Reagan reborn? 40668[/snapback] SVBT, as far as I know, hasn't shown any forged any documents to support their position, which in itself is only an opinion. FAR cry from what CBS did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I can't believe how wrong you guys all are. What's happening is clearly to the benefit of the Republican party, but that's the best part about it. They don't need to push this along. It'll take a life of it's own because CBS put a big fat ding in whatever credibility is left in the media. Do you think the rest of the media is just going to let that go by without being challenged? They'd be dead in the water. They have to attack their competition, to make it look like they're doing a responsible job, as well as to steal the viewers away from CBS. Oddly enough, I'd be willing to bet that CBS wins because anyone interested in this story will probably make an effort to watch Dan Rather on CBS to see what the hell he'll do next? Is he really biased? Those interested in the story will likely tune in to find out. Oh, look. More viewers. Higher ad fees. Get it while you can because when the story passes, CBS will be begging for viewers, and that will be the end of Dan Rather. This isn't political. It just has a political topic involved. Outside of that, what you're watching SHOULD be a competitive bloodbath for CBS as a result of pissing all over an already suspect business: the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I can't believe how wrong you guys all are. What's happening is clearly to the benefit of the Republican party, but that's the best part about it. They don't need to push this along. It'll take a life of it's own because CBS put a big fat ding in whatever credibility is left in the media. Do you think the rest of the media is just going to let that go by without being challenged? They'd be dead in the water. They have to attack their competition, to make it look like they're doing a responsible job, as well as to steal the viewers away from CBS. Oddly enough, I'd be willing to bet that CBS wins because anyone interested in this story will probably make an effort to watch Dan Rather on CBS to see what the hell he'll do next? Is he really biased? Those interested in the story will likely tune in to find out. Oh, look. More viewers. Higher ad fees. Get it while you can because when the story passes, CBS will be begging for viewers, and that will be the end of Dan Rather. This isn't political. It just has a political topic involved. Outside of that, what you're watching SHOULD be a competitive bloodbath for CBS as a result of pissing all over an already suspect business: the media. 40762[/snapback] You're coming across as a real asssshole lately, but I liked your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 They are lambasting CBS on the Republican-run NPR. maybe the program you listened to was bashing CBS, but the one I listened to definitely downplayed the importance of it - lots of quotes from people like "the press likes to talk about itself", "this is taking the focus away from such important issues" blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I can't believe how wrong you guys all are. What's happening is clearly to the benefit of the Republican party, but that's the best part about it. They don't need to push this along. It'll take a life of it's own because CBS put a big fat ding in whatever credibility is left in the media. Do you think the rest of the media is just going to let that go by without being challenged? They'd be dead in the water. They have to attack their competition, to make it look like they're doing a responsible job, as well as to steal the viewers away from CBS. Oddly enough, I'd be willing to bet that CBS wins because anyone interested in this story will probably make an effort to watch Dan Rather on CBS to see what the hell he'll do next? Is he really biased? Those interested in the story will likely tune in to find out. Oh, look. More viewers. Higher ad fees. Get it while you can because when the story passes, CBS will be begging for viewers, and that will be the end of Dan Rather. This isn't political. It just has a political topic involved. Outside of that, what you're watching SHOULD be a competitive bloodbath for CBS as a result of pissing all over an already suspect business: the media. 40762[/snapback] My husband told me he was watching an interview the other night of a Republican who said that he wouldn't be surprised to hear that the documents themselves came from the Bush campaign, because it's to the Bush campaign's benefit to keep the media and electorate focused AWAY from the record (maybe that's why all Bush's ads talk about his PLANS because he has no PAST to hang his 10-gallon on). Anyway I wish I knew who it was, it sounds like something Mccain would say. I'm on the road and not watching TV but maybe someone else saw this. You're just such a broad, well-rounded and informed bunch ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Keep driving, there may be a cliff coming up. Afterall, thats what you always see anyways. Blzrul & Thelma and Louise. C-YA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Keep driving, there may be a cliff coming up. Afterall, thats what you always see anyways. Blzrul & Thelma and Louise. C-YA. 40794[/snapback] You're such a hostile person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted September 22, 2004 Author Share Posted September 22, 2004 Like Richio did, whenever FOX had an article that said WMDs had been found in IRaq, he (and FOX) would never post the articles that stated he and FOX were wrong. So, if it was FOX, they would simply give the original story and ignore the (after-the-fact) truth. 40447[/snapback] did you take your meds today? Your post makes absolutely no sense at all. Please try again. Take a deep breathe and slow down...the point here is to actually make some sense. Ok, go....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted September 22, 2004 Author Share Posted September 22, 2004 Hmm Swift Boat Veterans??? Does that ring a bell? Or are you so wrapped up in believing that Bush is somehow Reagan reborn? 40668[/snapback] hello...earth to spidey...please get the cob webs out. Are you saying that the swift boat ads were the creation of FOX News? Please try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 You're such a hostile person. 40802[/snapback] Damn, I though that anolgy worked. I'll try agin soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 My husband told me he was watching an interview the other night of a Republican who said that he wouldn't be surprised to hear that the documents themselves came from the Bush campaign, because it's to the Bush campaign's benefit to keep the media and electorate focused AWAY from the record (maybe that's why all Bush's ads talk about his PLANS because he has no PAST to hang his 10-gallon on). Anyway I wish I knew who it was, it sounds like something Mccain would say. I'm on the road and not watching TV but maybe someone else saw this. You're just such a broad, well-rounded and informed bunch ... Yeah, well, we cant ALL be Streisand. But we do what we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 My husband told me he was watching an interview the other night of a Republican who said that he wouldn't be surprised to hear that the documents themselves came from the Bush campaign, because it's to the Bush campaign's benefit to keep the media and electorate focused AWAY from the record (maybe that's why all Bush's ads talk about his PLANS because he has no PAST to hang his 10-gallon on). Anyway I wish I knew who it was, it sounds like something Mccain would say. I'm on the road and not watching TV but maybe someone else saw this. You're just such a broad, well-rounded and informed bunch ... 40771[/snapback] OMG, adjust your tin foil helmet, deb. It ain't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 My husband told me he was watching an interview the other night of a Republican who said that he wouldn't be surprised to hear that the documents themselves came from the Bush campaign, because it's to the Bush campaign's benefit to keep the media and electorate focused AWAY from the record (maybe that's why all Bush's ads talk about his PLANS because he has no PAST to hang his 10-gallon on). Anyway I wish I knew who it was, it sounds like something Mccain would say. I'm on the road and not watching TV but maybe someone else saw this. You're just such a broad, well-rounded and informed bunch ... 40771[/snapback] Cherry or grape Kool-Aid today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 ..., because it's to the Bush campaign's benefit to keep the media and electorate focused AWAY from the record (maybe that's why all Bush's ads talk about his PLANS because he has no PAST to hang his 10-gallon on). 40771[/snapback] John Kerry has been in the senate for 20 years and I haven't heard ONE THING about his record. Why? He hasn't done stevestojan for 20 years except vote to raise taxes 348 times. Who's record is being run from? "I've been in the senate 20 years but vote for me because I was in Vietnam for 4 months." That's the Kerry campaign. See you with Hillary in 2008. RunTheBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 The better question is probably if this was John Kerry, would 60 Minutes and Dan Rather have run the story. It is impossible to know. For my money, I would say yes, they would have. In a second. Because the men and women from 60 Minutes are true scumbags, and will slander anyone, and will use deceptive and false and misleading interviews and editing unrivaled this side of Michael Moore to tell their stories. And they have been shoveling stevestojan for 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I agree with KFBD. The 60 Minutes people consider themselves the "Gold Standard" for tv journalism, but they have been anything but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 The better question is probably if this was John Kerry, would 60 Minutes and Dan Rather have run the story. It is impossible to know. For my money, I would say yes, they would have. In a second. Because the men and women from 60 Minutes are true scumbags, and will slander anyone, and will use deceptive and false and misleading interviews and editing unrivaled this side of Michael Moore to tell their stories. And they have been shoveling stevestojan for 30 years. 41041[/snapback] It starts with their ingrained bias. In many cases, they imagine a story, based on inconclusive facts, and their ingrained preconceptions of what they might mean. Then they find ways to fill in the gaps, to support their story. In this case, they fabricated the "facts." This isn't bias. This is fraud. They would not have done this to John Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Does anyone remember which network ran the story years ago about some vehicle that would explode on impact if in an accident? They then rigged the vehicle with explosives so they could film a simulation. I believe it was one of 60 minutes inspired tabloid shows, but don't remember which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Does anyone remember which network ran the story years ago about some vehicle that would explode on impact if in an accident? They then rigged the vehicle with explosives so they could film a simulation. I believe it was one of 60 minutes inspired tabloid shows, but don't remember which one. 41202[/snapback] I remember the story because I was driving a Chevy pickup at the time (the vehicle that supposedly blew up on side impacts). I don't remember which organization was responsible, though it may have been 60 minutes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts