The CBS debacle just baffles me.

[spanone]

Why did CBS go off half-cocked? There was no indication of partisan bias so what the hell was CBS' motivation? Just to GET Bush*? Shouldn't they have known that the only way to GET him was to have all of their ducks in a row? Vetted to death? Were they set up? Did Bushco know what they had or were going to acquire and set them up? Will we ever know? Lots of questions and seeking answers. This and the Armstrong Williams exposure gives me the double creeps from this mal-administration.

[stray cat]

1. I think they wanted the story and jumped the gun

They were afraid of getting scooped and they ended up doing Bush a tremendous favor because it drew attention away from real facts.

[MisterP]

2. the only thing questionable is purely its provenance:

even the secretary who said she never saw that letter said that its contents are wholly true

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. .

[spanone]

5. You and I know that but that got lost in the story. The story became CBS

[BlueEyedSon]

1. They were set up. 2. They had as much hard evidence as usual,

but were up against a relentless and powerful foe.
3. They messed up.

[dave123williams]

3. You have to understand Rather's history...

The 1968 Republican convention; he got his ass kicked on live tv on the convention floor...you should go dig up the footage; the Thuglicans have hated him ever since.

[itzamirakul]

8. I think he also smart-mouthed a Repub President during a

White House Press Conference many years ago. I remember seeing it but I don't remember who the Prez was at the time. Nixon?... If it was Rather who did this, he lost his job in the Press Room shortly thereafter according to my not always infallable memory these days.

[Sequoia]

9. It was Nixon who asked Rather if he was running for

president, and Rather replied "Are You?"

[itzamirakul]

15. Yeah! That was it!...

I remember that it was SOOOO scandalous at the time. Everyone thought for sure that his career was OVER. They waited a long time to get revenge.

[stellanoir]

6. rove set them up

the documentation's content was true but * had the records destroyed. Then Rove planted this as a ruse to take down CBS. This report was sychronized to minumize the Amstrong gross illegalities. Sleep tight america.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

18. Again, I disagree

I think the documents would have been done better. If Rove had done it (smart/sleazy), there would have been one or two glaring errors, but the docs would have been perfect otherwise. The glaring errors would have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they were false.

[Clark2008]

7. Because journalists don't act like journlists anymore

They act more like entertainers.

Even seasoned reporters have forgotten how to vet sources and check facts, it seems.

This wasn't about "getting Bush" or even proving him to be the liar he is. This was about competition from other news sources. Competition is usually good. It makes a product better. But, if they had really wanted to scoop the competition, why didn't they report on this in 1999 WHEN THE BOSTON GLOBE DID.

[UTUSN]

10. CBS Was Set Up----Set Up-----Set Up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2934908

[tjdee]

11. They brought this up the NEXT DAY after the Armstrong business broke.

Gee, what a coincidence!

(okay, the next *business* day)

[MasonJar]

12. The reason that I think CBS was set up is because it was only 2

or 3 hours after the show that webs were saying why the papers were fake. Rove knew that the AWOL up against war hero was not good, so he, with his usual dragon's breath slime, set up Rather.

[Mend]

13. Any attempt by the mainstream media

to report something negative about a republican will be punished until there is no negative reporting about them at all. We are there.

[durutti]

14. Some things are indeterminate.

They are just anomalous.

[bklyncowgirl]

16. Other News organizations were working on the same story

Apparently USA Today and the New York Times were working on the same story and after the same documents.

Also remember that the guy who had them had tried to give them to Michael Moore (he was not convinced they were real) and to the Kerry campeign through Howard Dean and Max Cleland--both of whom refused to have anything to do with them.

My guess at the time was that CBS got greedy and careless and rushed to broadcast in order to get the scoop and apparently that is exactly what happened. What I'd like to see is an investigation into who forged the documents,(if indeed they were forged).

I'll believe until convinced otherwise that the trail leads to Karl Rove.

[dbt]

17. Greg Palast: CBS' Cowardice and Conflicts Behind the Purge

CBS said, "The Panel found that Mapes ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report -- that President Bush had received special treatment 30 years ago, getting to the Guard ahead of many other applicants ."

Well, excuse me, but that story is stone cold solid, irrefutable, backed-up, sourced, proven to a fare-thee-well. I know, because I'm one of the reporters who broke that story way back in 1999, for the Guardian papers of Britain. No one has challenged the Guardian report, or my follow-up for BBC Television, whatsoever, though we've begged the White House for a response from our self-proclaimed "war president."

CBS did not "break" this Chicken-Hawk George story; it's just that Dan Rather, with Mapes' encouragement, found his journalistic soul and the cojones, finally, after 5 years delay, to report it. Did Bush get special treatment to get into the Guard? Baby Bush tested in the 25th percentile out of 100. Yet, he leaped ahead of thousands of other Vietnam evaders because the then-Speaker of the Texas legislature sent a message to General Craig Rose, head of the Guard, to let in Little George and a few other sons of well-placed politicos.

http://www.rense.com/general61/ddpe.htm

(Please note that the story is on Rense.com and savor the irony!)

:smoke:
dbt