 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Ten Reasons | Main | Update » September 20, 2004Memogate: A Rather Lame StatementHere is the entire text of Dan Rather's statement regarding the forged memos... 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.Notice, please, that Rather didn't simply admit that the memos are obvious fakes, and apologize to the public and to President Bush for airing a smear-job based solely on four forged documents and the statements of two Democratic partisans. Rather merely says he can no longer "vouch" for them accuracy of the memos because "we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers." While Rather doesn't name the source, CBS admits that Bill Burkett, a barking moonbat Bush-hater who has long ago been discredited on his wild allegations regarding Bush's National Guard service, was their source for the memos. Rather, remember, called Burkett an "unimpeachable source." Next thing you know, CBS will be sourcing its ant-Bush stories to a Michael Moore and calling him a "non-partisan political analyst." Others weigh in: Charles Johnson: Rather's retraction is "more obfuscation." PowerLine's John Hinderaker: "They still can't bring themselves to admit what everyone knows, that the documents are fakes." Hinderaker wonders if the documents passed from Burkett to CBS via Kerry campaigner Max Cleland. Hugh Hewitt calls Rather's statement "a pathetic attempt to save face, a "limited, modified hang-out," a contingent apology that contains nothing of remorse or any promise of reform much less of resignation." Posted in Journalism & Media
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
I think they may - in the release I received in my email box from CBS, they state that "MAN WHO GAVE CBS NEWS DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES HOW HE OBTAINED THEM; IN TELEVISION INTERVIEW, HE ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY MISLED CBS NEWS PRODUCER" Obviously it's not totally clear there, but this person may actually implicate *their* source. Posted by: Tom at September 20, 2004 11:53 AM"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically." Let me translate: "After stonewalling for over a week, we have finally been able to make sure that Bill Burkett alone will take the fal for this. I have personally coached him on what to say and how to say it. Now that we have him in the fold, we can admit that we tried to pull one over on you but we got caught even though everyone knows this story is true and besides, everyone involved with this story is non-partisan and I have memos to prove it." Posted by: Steve L. at September 20, 2004 12:42 PMWhy does CBS continue to allow Dan Rather to "uncover the truth" on a story that he was part of? It surely seems like an ongoing attempt to PREVENT us from finding out what really happened. Who is the "unimpeachable source"? If you expect us to beleive it is Bill Burkett you better dig a little deeper, it has been widely documented he is bit of a loose cannon. Dan, if you expect us to listen to what your network has to say, then get out of the middle of this story! Didn't you get the memo? Your credibilty to be objective and truthful on this story was shot about 10+ days ago. Posted by: Jane at September 20, 2004 12:44 PMIf you googled this story the day after its release you know it went to EVERY part of the globe, that is how much store the MSM, all over the world, put in CBS's story. 'I'm sorry' is not EVEN A START! I want an indictment not a resignation. Now! Posted by: Only Natural at September 20, 2004 12:45 PMMr. Rather said that the documents came from an "unimpeachable source." By any standard Bill Burkett was a highly suspect source. No further investigation was necessary to determine this. CBS needs a managing editor who can properly evaluate sources. On this basis alone, Mr. Rather should resign, or be relieved of duty if he doesn't resign. And finally, what was the real source? What was the Kerry campaign role in this? Did you notice that the story ends with a spin indicating that the White House has been/is refusing to release information? The implication is that it's the White House's fault. There is no apology for Dan Rather lying when he said there was no evidence to the contrary. Jerry Dale Patterson Did you notice that the story ends with a spin indicating that the White House has been/is refusing to release information? The implication is that it's the White House's fault. There is no apology for Dan Rather lying when he said there was no evidence to the contrary. Jerry Dale Patterson I don't perwonally care what CBS has to to say or what its management promises. I won't be watching. Let Mr. Neilsen do the rest. Posted by: Scott at September 20, 2004 02:11 PMBlather and c-BS are sorry they got caught using fake and forged documents. They didn't apologize to President Bush for slandering him. Nor to the American public for trying to bamboozle them into thinking that President Bush was dishonorable. Posted by: Gail at September 20, 2004 03:22 PMJust heard Daniel Schorr's defense of CBS on public radio. CBS portrayed as a hapless victim of being unable to "prove" the authenticity of the memos, which of course Barnes and the secretary and everyone else knows they are probably "true". Not a word of the other CBS reviewers telling them not to put on the air, Killian's son and window, Staudt, etc. But ol Dan is real sorry he was duped, but after a few days of atoning, things will be OK & he'll back to the same swell "investigative" reporting. The whole CBS organization, past and present, can't see 2 inches. What a complete pile of malarkey. Posted by: Bert M at September 20, 2004 06:31 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
