Comments on: Rather Impeachable http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/ Where all the kids want to meet! Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:36:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Justin http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/#comment-2009 Justin Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:44:39 +0000 http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=492#comment-2009 I think it's crazy to accuse Rather of mudslinging. Is he guilty of being gullible in his hurried attempt to break a story: definitely. But now the CBS news people are as bad as the Swift Boat guys? I'm no huge fan of CBS News or Dan Rather, but these guys are pros. Dan Rather's been doing this for fifty years. He's not going to go on TV and lie to sway the election. I am usually first in line with a sinister conspiracy theory. But this seems like a boner. I hope, for everyone's sake, that if CBS were to invent some news, it'd be more convincing than this. What's the frequency, Kenneth? I think it’s crazy to accuse Rather of mudslinging.

Is he guilty of being gullible in his hurried attempt to break a story: definitely. But now the CBS news people are as bad as the Swift Boat guys? I’m no huge fan of CBS News or Dan Rather, but these guys are pros. Dan Rather’s been doing this for fifty years. He’s not going to go on TV and lie to sway the election.

I am usually first in line with a sinister conspiracy theory. But this seems like a boner.
I hope, for everyone’s sake, that if CBS were to invent some news, it’d be more convincing than this.

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

]]> By: FilteringCraig http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/#comment-2008 FilteringCraig Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:32:29 +0000 http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=492#comment-2008 You don't see a difference between this sensationalistic disasterpiece in the heart of election season? Especially when we have so much controversy over swift boat ads, etc. He slung mud in a very close race and used exhibits A through C even though he didn't need them. I would say that is a big deal. You don’t see a difference between this sensationalistic disasterpiece in the heart of election season? Especially when we have so much controversy over swift boat ads, etc. He slung mud in a very close race and used exhibits A through C even though he didn’t need them. I would say that is a big deal.

]]> By: Justin http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/#comment-2007 Justin Thu, 23 Sep 2004 05:41:34 +0000 http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=492#comment-2007 I think you're being a little tough on Rather & Co. This shit happens. In hindsight, we can call him a bonehead. But in the moment, he did what anyone would have done: he tried to verify them as quickly as possible so he could get it on the air first. To call the source "unimpeachable" just means that the guy's never done this shit before. No one in news expects the source to be neutral. You don't get news from neutral parties. You get news from disgruntled former employees, people who've been passed over for promotions, and other people with axes to grind. Who do you think leaks the leaked news stories we read every day? It's not neutral parties. Now that he's led a newscaster astray, he's not unimpeachable anymore. He's worthless. No one will ever believe him again. But you can't blame Rather for believing him to begin with. If Rather has two sources telling him these letters are legit and one expert saying they're legit, his job is done. He can take a nap. Especially in this day and age where almost everything seems to break on the internet, the networks are especially hard pressed to produce "breaking" news. Rather tried and he got burned. Happens to everyone. Even the NY Times runs corrections. They print "The Times regrets the error" the next day and everyone acknowledges that these things happen. I don't know why it would be necessary to rake Rather over the coals. I think you’re being a little tough on Rather & Co. This shit happens. In hindsight, we can call him a bonehead. But in the moment, he did what anyone would have done: he tried to verify them as quickly as possible so he could get it on the air first.

To call the source “unimpeachable” just means that the guy’s never done this shit before. No one in news expects the source to be neutral. You don’t get news from neutral parties. You get news from disgruntled former employees, people who’ve been passed over for promotions, and other people with axes to grind. Who do you think leaks the leaked news stories we read every day? It’s not neutral parties.

Now that he’s led a newscaster astray, he’s not unimpeachable anymore. He’s worthless. No one will ever believe him again. But you can’t blame Rather for believing him to begin with.

If Rather has two sources telling him these letters are legit and one expert saying they’re legit, his job is done. He can take a nap.

Especially in this day and age where almost everything seems to break on the internet, the networks are especially hard pressed to produce “breaking” news. Rather tried and he got burned. Happens to everyone. Even the NY Times runs corrections. They print “The Times regrets the error” the next day and everyone acknowledges that these things happen. I don’t know why it would be necessary to rake Rather over the coals.

]]> By: kiddicus electicus http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/#comment-2006 kiddicus electicus Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:38:15 +0000 http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=492#comment-2006 i'm just surprised that they didn't do a better job forging the document. i mean c'mon... who used superscript and subscript on something that was supposed to be from the seventies? were they stupid? that's like the kid who signs his name on the parent spot on his report card and tries to turn it into the teacher. or scanning a $20 bill on your PC and printing it up on computer paper. c'mon people... if you're going to bullsh*t at least do it with some conviction. This was more of a blow to forgers than it was Dan Rather, 60 minutes or CBS. i’m just surprised that they didn’t do a better job forging the document. i mean c’mon… who used superscript and subscript on something that was supposed to be from the seventies? were they stupid? that’s like the kid who signs his name on the parent spot on his report card and tries to turn it into the teacher. or scanning a $20 bill on your PC and printing it up on computer paper. c’mon people… if you’re going to bullsh*t at least do it with some conviction. This was more of a blow to forgers than it was Dan Rather, 60 minutes or CBS.

]]> By: Chris http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/#comment-2005 Chris Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:44:06 +0000 http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=492#comment-2005 I agree what happened is an actionable offense in a news organization. It's also weird as hell. Surely they knew how thin their stuff was and that it would be challenged immediately. I agree what happened is an actionable offense in a news organization. It’s also weird as hell. Surely they knew how thin their stuff was and that it would be challenged immediately.

]]> By: Blogcritics http://www.filteringcraig.com/2004/09/21/rather-impeachable/#comment-2010 Blogcritics Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:12:27 +0000 http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=492#comment-2010 <strong>Rather Impeachable</strong> I am not sure that all the people around the country understand the gravity of this situation with Dan Rather... Rather Impeachable

I am not sure that all the people around the country understand the gravity of this situation with Dan Rather…

]]>