Bring Rather Down!

Democrats always lie. It's what they do.
Sure they know they are lying. They just don't care.
They don't even think the lies are bad. They lie in defence of The Cause. It makes lies Good.

clinton lied and lived to laugh about it.
and Rather probably will too.

On the other hand maybe, just maybe there is enough outrage here to Bring One Liar Down.

If you haven't written or e-mailed CBS, you're just wasting time here.

If Rather falls, it won't be the Berlin Wall all over again, but it will be big,
it will signal a change in how things work in a way that other liberals will see and fear,
and it will help the re-election of the president.

 

Suppositories! That's the trick! You need suppositories!

 

Why stop with Rather? Let's bring down all of the corporate 'news' networks.

 

HAhahaha...

wheres your proof that Dan Rather lied? he's a very credible news man...where are your sources? Fox News?

I saw something about this on Hannity and Colmes, first they tried parroting something the white house said about it being made on microsoft word... which was a lie... then they interviewed the son of the commander who issued the report... the guy was a Bush supporter, and said that he couldn't imagine his father writing something like that... unfortuantly the guy died in '84... before Bush was in politics, so its unlikely that he woulda said anything about it too his son.

Then, without any proof of misdeed, they asked for an apology from democrats! that was half an hour segment... it was the craziest distortion I've ever heard... they weren't even trying to make their case... just saying 'well this is dirty politics' ...

Fox news is trying to destroy whatever little credibility was left in american media.

 

URL: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513-5362393.html < http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513-5362393.html >

Forget the political conventions.

When history books are written, bloggers' real contribution to the 2004 election may well turn out to be in providing leagues of amateur sleuths to fact-check political controversy.


For the last 24 hours, the Internet has been abuzz with bloggers' claims that the memos about President Bush's time in the National Air Guard publicized by CBS were actually a hoax. Keepers of online journals around the country have been analyzing the memos in excruciating detail, comparing the notes' typography to the technical specifications of early 1970s typewriters.
The result? It's too early to say whether the bloggers calling "hoax" have won the day. But they have certainly helped drive questions about the veracity of CBS's "60 Minutes II" report on Wednesday night to the highest levels of the major media, and in so doing have helped shape what could be one of the most explosive--or simply weirdest--stories of the political season.

"Blogs have been characterized as places where people just go to mouth off, but what this brings out is the ability of blogs to actually help report a story," said Paul Grabowitz, professor of new media at the University of California at Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism.


The incident could help legitimize the role that blogs and other nonprofessional online writers are already playing in the everyday business of news reporting.

Even traditional reporters working online have had to struggle to win credibility over the past decade. But nontraditional sources such as blogs--which run the gamut from high-school journal entries to war reporting from Iraq--have often had an even harder time being taken seriously.
The Drudge Report was one of the first to break into the consciousness of the mainstream media, largely by scooping the stories of old media publications before they hit the street. The report's publication of Monica Lewinsky's name before Newsweek ran its story on the Clinton affair catapulted the report and Lewinsky into national headlines.


But unlike the report's writer, Matt Drudge, bloggers rarely call themselves journalists. Many focus as heavily on community and discussion as on original reporting. From this can come startling insight and well-reasoned analysis, or on-the-spot news posted faster than most news outlets can manage.
The Bush memo story has shown the Internet's broader power of linking thousands of readers together, as much as it has demonstrated the intrinsic power of blogs themselves.


Not long after CBS aired its story on "60 Minutes II," dealing with memos that allegedly showed President Bush's Texas National Guard superiors raising questions about his service, a pseudonymous message board posting <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F1210662%2Fposts&siteId=22&oId=2102-3513_22-5362393&ontId=3513&lop=nl_ex> on the conservative FreeRepublic.com Web site called the documents a hoax.

This kind of rhetoric is common on that site's message boards, but the author asserted that the typewriter font used in the CBS memos was anachronistic and would not have come into common use until after the alleged date of the memos.

Thursday morning, while most news services were still catching up to the CBS story, Minneapolis attorney Scott Johnson posted a link to the FreeRepublic claim on his conservative-leaning Power Line blog. The item sparked an eruption of e-mail from readers, ranging from former military officers to an IBM typewriter repairman, many doing detailed, expert-sounding analysis <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F007760.php&siteId=22&oId=2102-3513_22-5362393&ontId=3513&lop=nl_ex> of the memos' typography. Johnson posted excerpts from the messages, most of which said the memos were likely to have been forgeries.

Other conservative bloggers chimed in, posting comparisons to Microsoft Word printouts <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs.com%2Fweblog%2F%3Fentry%3D12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged&siteId=22&oId=2102-3513_22-5362393&ontId=3513&lop=nl_ex> that they said looked virtually identical. Liberal bloggers spoke up too <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2004%2F9%2F10%2F34914%2F1603&siteId=22&oId=2102-3513_22-5362393&ontId=3513&lop=nl_ex>, working to dismantle the skeptics' claims.
Ultimately the Drudge Report linked to Johnson's site. The resulting traffic took Power Line temporarily offline, but helped raise the typographical questions to a national level.


The national media has found other reasons to question the CBS story. But the issues raised by the bloggers have now been prominently featured in publications including The New York Times and the Washington Post.
"I feel a little bit overwhelmed," Power Line's Johnson said Friday. "I still feel like we're in the eye of a hurricane."

 

Even with the best case scenario for Bush regarding his guard service, he still avoided Viet Nam while Kerry served there.

I don't know enough about typewriters in the early 70s to know one way or the other reagarding that issue. There were ones that had Times Roman and superscripts and also proportional fonts back then. How popular they were at that time I couldn't really say. Some of Bush's guard records have superscript fonts.

It would simplify things if CBS simply told us where they got the documents.

Here's another link for anyone who likes to beguile time away on this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

 

And Here's A Link That Just About Anyone should be able to understand....


LGF reader Steve writes:

I’m a PhD researcher in image registration (alignment) in the Department
of Radiology at ________. I wrote a computer program to find the best affine alignment (a standard technique involving translation, rotation, scaling and shearing) of the CBS memo and output from Word.

Here is the high resolution result <http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/>, for an even more dramatic look at CBS’s folly.


COMPARE YOURSELF.

 

Lol....How dare CBS News tell the truth about AWOL Bush.


http://www.awolbush.com

 

Bringin gRather down IS the way to shake the foundations of corporate news!!!

Two easy ways to express your complaints.

OR CBS.com, and scroll down to "feedback" at the bottom of the page.

OR join up with this group...http://annika.mu.nu/archives/045191.html

 

Gabino wants to bring down anyone who investigates King George.

Seig Hiel asshole!

 

September 12, 2004

Suicide Bombers and CBS News


Before September 11, important aspects of our security arrangements were based on the assumption that people, even terrorists, want to live. For example, airlines followed the rule that if a passenger's bags were checked but the person failed to appear for the flight, his bags would be removed from the airplane. The idea was that a bomb could have been planted in the luggage. But as long as the passenger was on the airplane, it was assumed that his bags were safe, since no one -- it was thought -- would blow up an airplane with himself on it. After September 11, security arrangements were changed to take into account the new reality (or newly recognized reality) of the suicide bomber.

When he defended CBS's publication of forged documents, Dan Rather spoke of the "checks and balances" that ensure the reliability of news coming from CBS, as opposed to news and commentary from the blogosphere. What are those checks and balances? Ultimately, the main check on the danger that a powerful media giant like CBS might abuse its position of trust by deliberately propagating falsehoods is the assumption that the network values its reputation for accuracy and trustworthiness. In the past, most people have assumed that while broadcast networks, wire services like the Associated Press, and newspapers will occasionally make mistakes, and will certainly spin the news consistent with their political biases, concern for their reputation in the marketplace, and even more among their peers, would prevent them from spreading outright falsehoods.

In the wake of the CBS scandal, that assumption must be reevaluated.
I don't know how the forged document scandal will ultimately play out. I don't know whether CBS will be forced to acknowledge that the documents are fakes, or whether Dan Rather will resign in disgrace. But I do know this: everyone who cares already knows that the "Killian memos" are low-quality forgeries.


Very few Americans are news junkies. Most people will probably never know about the CBS scandal, or will never have enough information to form a judgment about it. For that matter, most don't care. But within the news business, and inside the relatively small slice of the American population where sophisticated consumers of the news dwell, everyone knows, already, that Dan Rather and CBS News tried to influence the November election by telling lies and publishing forged documents. CBS has been disgraced among its peers.

The fact that CBS was willing to barter away what remained of its reputation in exchange for an opportunity to help the John Kerry campaign requires us to re-examine our assumptions about the mainstream media, just as the emergence of the suicide bomber required us to re-examine certain assumptions about security. We never thought that a vast, powerful broadcast network would destroy its own reputation for political gain. Now we know that it can happen.

And it isn't just CBS News. The Associated Press has, for most of its history, been regarded as a neutral, factual reporting service whose dispatches--reporting, not commentary--could be trusted, and were trusted, by thousands of newspapers. That, too, has changed. We have chronicled the astonishing story of the West Allis, Wisconsin Bush rally, where President Bush announced that he had just received word of President Clinton's hospitalization. President Bush said that his thoughts and prayers were with the Clinton family, and the audience of Republicans cheered enthusiastically.
But that isn't what the Associated Press reported. AP reporter Scott Lindlaw, in an article carrying the by-line of Tom Hays, fabricated a lie. The AP reported that Bush's "audience of thousands booed. Bush did nothing to stop them." That lie was disseminated to thousands of newspapers and television stations, and while a revised version of the story was later issued, the AP has never apologized, explained what happened, or disciplined either Lindlaw or Hays.

What is remarkable, under pre-2004 assumptions, is that the lie was so easily uncovered and proved. Thousands of people were present at the rally, including many reporters. Audiotapes and videotapes of the rally were easily available. They showed, beyond a doubt, that the AP's story was a lie. No one booed. Yet Lindlaw, Hays and the AP retailed the lie because they thought it would help John Kerry. Scott Lindlaw has been quoted as saying, "My mission is to see that Bush is not re-elected." He and his employer gladly sacrificed their reputation for accuracy to achieve that goal.

So we have entered a new era. We now know that our richest and most powerful news organizations are willing to blow themselves up--to destroy their own credibility, once considered a news organization's most precious possession--to achieve a political goal. The landscape will never look quite the same again. Those of us who still value truth must look at the mainstream media in a new, more skeptical and critical way, taking nothing for granted. Because, like suicide bombers, the mainstream news organs will go farther to achieve their political goals than we ever imagined.


http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007807.php

 

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism. Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

 

Nice picture and talk about clinton.

'course it doesn't have anything to do with the thread.


Imagine if CBS, or anyone else, Brings out something like this days before the election. Everyone agrees by now that CBS perpetrated a fraud.

In a democracy, a media that behaves like that is terribly dangerous. In fact that sort of media is exactly what WILL BRING the Dictatorship you seem to fear

 

Everyone? There is no agreement on that. You attack the messenger while ignoring the message. Many people agree that the U.S. Supreme Court perpetrated a fraud when they stopped Florida from counting it's own votes.

Bush was AWOL. http://www.awolbush.com

 

Oh yes there is.

Everyone who has paid any attention to this story knows by know that CBS,
Knew it was likely a lie,
Was told by the family that it was a lie,

And yet they ran the story anyway.

This is an attempted rape of Lady Liberty, and anyone, in any political party, that ignores this, is jeopardizing our democracy.

This has nothing to do with political stance. It's about the Republic.

 

What a sorry state of affairs this campaign has deteriorated into that we are having an argument over what type of keys a typewriter had in 1972.

 

Well yes.

On the other hand the battle for truth is always honorable, and those who do what they can are the real heroes of democracy.

 

Gimme some truth about what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the Peterson case.

 

The pettyness of the republicans is disgusting.

 

Now why in the world would you think that those things have anything to do with this thread?

There are already several threads to discuss those things, and i have been to most of them.

It's that you don't like this topic, right?
And you'd like to change the subject?


Don't you see how dangerous this is to All Of Our Freedom?