The letter I just *tried* to post at Sixty Minutes:

[Jonathan50]

To Sixty Minutes:

Sixty Minutes has committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican party.

Sixty Minutes has real reporters on staff, I know this because I have seen them in action, doing reporting.

No real reporter would use the phrase "some people would say" without attribution when the attribution was known.

Sixty Minutes allowed Katy Couric to use the phrase "some people would say" many times in a single interview without attributing what people are saying things to people who are actually saying them, people who are well known and from whom Ms Couric is actually hearing these things.

To claim that Ms Couric does not know of the source of the "some people would say" statements is simply not credible. Anyone who pays any attention to politics knows who is saying these things.

That your entire production crew watched this interview at least once and not one single soul noticed the unprofessional conduct on the part of Ms Couric is not credible either.

As Sherlock Holmes once remarked: Once you have eliminated the impossible, the only thing left, no matter how improbable, is the answer.

We have eliminated the impossible, that Ms Couric didn't know the source of the "some people would say" statments, and that the entire sixty minutes crew would have missed such a glaring reporting error.

Therefore, the only explanation left is Ms Couric's interview of the Edwards was a knowing and deliberate effort to paint the Edwards with far right talking points to harm their candidacy.

It is also clear that upper management must have been involved for journalistic ethics to have been overridden in such an obvious and callous way.

[wicket]

1. Excellent

K & R

:kick:

[Jonathan50]

10. How to complain to CBS

Here's the link to the CBS main page:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

Go there and at the very bottom, in the last horizontal blue stripe, right about the middle there are small white letters that say contact us.

A window pops up and you just cut and paste the text in, give them whatever email addy and name you choose and voila' it is done..

I really would like to see these worms apologize..

[aquart]

2. I was posting and then my post disappeared. I did it again.

The second time it went thru. I'm beginning to learn to copy my comments as I type them.

[Jonathan50]

3. Keep a note pad or word pad window open...

Any one who wants to use my OP in any way they want is fine with me.

I would like to see the name "Mycroft" associated with it, but I don't really care about that either as long as it gets out.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Yes , yes , yes and .... no.

Nicely expressed.

I would avoid the use of the word "plot", even if there *is* a "plot". It's too easy to lampoon. And thereby dismiss.

"Bias" is what I would call it.

[Jonathan50]

7. I agree.. "plot" wasn't the best choice of words..

Any ideas to reword is great..

I'll wait for a while before I fool with it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Off the top of my....

>>>Therefore, the only explanation left is Ms Couric's interview of the Edwards was a knowing and deliberate plot to paint the Edwards with far right talking points to harm their candidacy.

Furthermore, it was a plot not on the part of just Ms Couric, but must have been approved by highest management.>>>>

...(distracted) head, would it work if you eliminated these two paragraphs and said something instead to the effect of:

"if CBS is going to engage in 'advocacy journalism', it should specifically acknowledge this."

Might then tie it in with the 'partisan talking points' aspect that you allude to further back in the text.

Trouble with this whole line of attack, (the one that I'm suggesting) is..... there's no real *context* to it. Everyone with a brain knows the corporate media is skewed to the right, but our spokespeople ... including Edwards, BTW... never touch this with a ten foot pole. They create no *context* for the rest of us. Hence it's hard to make the case in a way that will resonate with... I don't know, that portion of the electorate with less than half a brain.

We have to start building publicly a case for the obvious: corporate America has a dog in this race and it is not a Democratic dog.

[Jonathan50]

11. Google "the overton window"..

Someone has to push "the Overton window" back to the left, if the politicians won't do it then the public must..

If CBS gets enough complaints, maybe they'll realize that they can't keep dispensing rightward slanted BS and continue to get away with it.

[Annces]

5. Very good

They should be called on this. They know better.

[namvet73]

6. I watched and.....

was also getting this creepy feeling of annoyance from Couric, especially after having seen her interview with 'W' in her first week with a much different "flavor."

But, I don't think it will hurt Edwards because he handled these inevitable questions incredibly well. In fact, it can only help him. Like "If you feel sorry for us, do not vote for me as president." Which goes along with his attitude that people have a right to whatever opinion they express. This is the very quality that I like about him, which is the opposite of what we have now, where no ones' opinion matters.

I've seen articles that Edwards may have taken a "risk" by running under those circumstances. Risk? How ridiculous! What's the other option? Not running at all and not running at all guarantees that he won't win. Guess what! Running for president is risky!

I am a big fan of Edwards and had wished that he ran for president in '04. But, I think if Edwards continues to sound as smart and intelligent as he does during the campaign and he loses anyway, then this country simply doesn't want him.

AS LONG AS THE ELECTION IS NOT RIGGED, the system will work as it was intended. If it is rigged, we'll all be cheated!

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I don't think we will do as bad as we did in 2000 and 2004 no matter who wins (except, perhaps if Newty won.)

[Jonathan50]

8. I agree that it didn't hurt Edwards and probably helped him..

Does not excuse in any way what Couric, Sixty Minutes and CBS management tried to do to Edwards.

It was such an obvious and ham handed hit piece.

I've revised the OP, tell me what you think..Everybody.

[namvet73]

15. True, it's definitely "Foxismic." Some people say the moon is green cheese. -n/t-

[Beaverhausen]

19. I agree. John and Elizabeth had great answers for every one of her questions

I loved his comment about all the private lives of all the candidates being held to scrutiny. Let's see them compare the other candidate's family values to those of the Edwards.

Just look at what Newt did when his wife had cancer.

[Astrad]

12. If she said to *ush in an interview

"Some people say you are out of touch with the majority of the American people..." or "Some people allege that you don't have the intellectual ability to be president..." would you find that objectionable? Because those assertions are in my view true, I don't find the 'some say' construction as problematic. It's when it's used to hide something that's unlikely to be true or is unproven that it's offensive such as in the Edwards interview where she says something like "Some say you're putting your ambition before your wife..."

[Jonathan50]

13. But she *wouldn't* and *hasn't* said those things to Bush.

That's the problem..

[aquart]

20. "Some say" is always problematic.

I won't accept it in an essay. It's a cover for ignorance or deliberate deception.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

14. Nicely done.

K&R

[earth mom]

16. I would love to give those jerks a piece of my mind but my old computer crashes

every time I go over there.

Sounds like CBS is being inundated with angry reactions. LOVE IT! :evilgrin:

[Vinnie From Indy]

17. A.C. Doyle actually wrote...

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

[Jonathan50]

18. You're right..

I was winging it and kind of upset at the time.. The piece just rolled off my fingers.