The memos are easily proven as fradulent if you have advanced knowledge of the forgery.
Correct. And, if I may, I think this exact same argument with a little twist applies equally to the Kerry campaign. If some dirty trickster at the DNC wanted to forge documents like this, why did they not simply vet them with their own document experts. It would not have involved expandign the conspiracy much more than is being theroized. That the documents were such obvious forgeries is evidence IMHO that they were not done by anyone with the sophistication of either campaign.
While that is certainly true, it is not the same as saying that the documents are NOT easily seen to be forgeries if you DON’T have advanced knowledge… which, it would appear, is what you are trying to imply.
In addition, CBS’s own experts called them into question before the story aired. Were they in on the Rove thing also?
Here’s the new Gallup poll relating to public trust in the media. Too bad that the CBS shenanigans has to spill all over the media in general – but that ‘appears’ to be what’s happening. It makes me wonder how this new level of public distrust will pay out in the election results. The new Gallup poll results show that public trust in media credibility is now at its lowest point in 30 years.
As a side note, this Gallup poll was taken BEFORE the CBS admission and apology but AFTER news reports began to question the authenticity of the CBS documents.
From the Gallup website -
Conspiracy or not that’s exactly what happened. It was done. Consider:
-
Tipping off those reporters created a feeding frenzy around those memos.
-
CBS got first dibs and then felt pressured to rush the broadcast because they were afraid of being scooped (for a journo, this is the achilles’ heel).
-
Even though they still had doubts about running it hours before airtime, Dan Bartlett’s acceptance of the memos gave them a false confidence that the memos weren’t going to be a problem.
It was a bad call for CBS. But it’s not hard to see how all these (orchestrated?)factors increased the odds that they would make that call, in spite of the doubts raised by the memos.
Again, the question is who tipped off those reporters?
No, slow down a bit. It happened is not the same as it was done. The continents were formed. Does that mean they were purposely formed?
I’m afraid even a feeding frenzy is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is a mechanism by which one could have been perpetrated. Can you propose a story which you could be assured of creating one? Can you propose a reason why any operative would have been assured of it? Back in July?
That is the next question we need answered.
Agreed on that point.
July???
There are no assurances. What criminal has assurance that he/she won’t be foiled? It was a calculated risk.
Well, if you’re firmly in the “lone forger” camp it could only have been Burkett, right? The only way to put this to rest is to prove Burkett did it. And by proof, I don’t mean some people calling him crazy. Let’s maintain the same burden of proof for all speculation, shall we?
Well, before August. Mid August surely.
No, it could have happened just as he said. The forger could have been the person who gave him the memos.
In fact, I tend to favor this possibility. I really don’t think Burkett would have forged them either. I admit that his technical skills may not be sufficient to say this in the same way I did for either political campaign. But it seems that he would have to have been really clinically ill to have thought he could get away with it. Not evidence to be sure. just MHO.
I tend to favor the statistical possibility that there are so many more people out there with computers and access to the internet that it is simply mor likely to be on of them than it is to be Burkett or someone from either campaign. Of course, you have to limit the choices to someone who knew Killian was Bush’s commanding officer. And better yet, someone who knew he was dead. This was probably public knowledge, but not very widely known. Still, I think that leaves several million suspects, no?
I agree entirely. The same burden of proof.
Than why doesn’t Burkett ‘out’ the person who got him in this predicament? Wait — Burkett says it’s because she’s mysterious and untraceable. Burkett also claims to have burned the originals handed over to him, so, it appears this mystery could never be solved. Both his source AND the documents are forever gone. Sorry, people, I don’t buy it. More likely Burkett typed the things and it’s more likely that Burkett is adding to his admitted list of lies simply because he doesn’t want jail time in his future.
I agree that is just as plausible. It should be possible to get phone records or something though. There aught to be some trace the he was contacted by a person.
“just as plausible”? I think not – at least not to those who didn’t practice their poltics as a religion. First Burkett is the ONLY person we know is a source. The ONLY ONE. Burkett has motivation to lie that some unknown other is the ultimate source. Take this motivation with his admission that he has already lied about THIS exact matter, and add it to the fact that if he doesn’t lie now he’s going to prison, Burkett’s monominical hatred of Bush, Burkett’s pre-CBS internet messages that he ‘has something’ on Bush, and we’re left with evidence and motivation that goes to showing that Burkett himself typed these frudulent documents. Now add to this that one the faked memos many inconsistancies is the use of Army National Guard terminology, not Air National Guard terminology. Burkett was in the Army National Guard not the Air National Guard.
Now - on the other side. What evidence is there for any of the tin hat scenarios provided by some of the posters above – that make any other scenario “just as plausible?” There is none. So, would “reasonable minds” see these possibilities as “just as plausible?” No.
Look - a favorite professor of mine likes to remind us that “the pigs get fat but the hogs get slaughtered.” The undisputed behavior of CBS, at a minimum, indicates a culture of pigs – with a few aspiring hogs in Mapes and Rather. Those involved in these unethical practices – Burkett, Mapes, Rather, and CBS generally, are certainly the gulity parties. The verdict is still out on Kerry’s aide, Lockhart, the Kerry campaign’s Operation Fortunate Son, and whether CBS colluded with the Kerry camp and provided advanced notice of the memos.
My appologies. That was a bad turn of phrase on my part. I did not mean to say that someone other than Burkett was equally likely to have forged the memos. Clearly (as you lay out so well) there is a good deal of evidence to implicate him. I probably should have said something closer to many of the elements of his story are plausible. My bad.
I’m not sure if this is the right place for it, but CBS is now delaying a report on the reasons for war until after the election.
Oh, the jokes just write themselves.
CBS understands that ANY documentary produced by them now - will fall under heavy scrutiny. The delayed documentary, of which you speak, was produced under the same CBS culture and, as such, possibly the same standards as Memogate. CBS knows it had better have it’s documents legitimately authenticated and it “sources” actually checked this time round. After the recent display of systemic problems, I don’t blame them for delaying this. If CBS produces Memogate II, so close to Memogate I – it’s history for a whole host of CBS brass-asses.
I agree that they need to take a hard look at their standards of evidence. However, from Ms. Edwards’ statement, it sounds like they’re overreacting. There’s nothing wrong with airing a piece that puts the president in a bad light just because there’s an election coming up. They aren’t just delaying it while they verify the facts; they’re delaying it until it’ll be irrelevant. Hopefully another news organization with a little more credibility will pick up the story.
So you’re saying that CBS refuses to air a legitimate news piece? Even where lives are on the line? But why? Because they’re concerned about their image?? Lives fir image? So, cutting to the chase here — are you saying that CBS STILL lacks credibility or is just the same organization run by Rather-like buffoons? And more importantly, are you saying that CBS is STILL dishonest even after — even after they so humbly shared with the world that they lacked credibility? OR – are you saying that deep-seated wrongness doesn’t take a 180 in lees than a month?
So — are you saying that CBS has decided to lie to us again, or are you saying that CBS is lost ethically?
Lots of questions but I really don’t understand –
That’s what I think. They got burned by the forged memos, and some people seem to think they rushed to air that story not because they were eager for a scoop, but because they’re evil lib’ruls hellbent on tarnishing our poor president’s name. They don’t want to reinforce that image by airing another story that’s bad for Bush, whether or not it meets journalistic standards.
Or perhaps they don’t want to air it because the parallels between an administration relying on phony evidence and a news team relying on phony evidence are just too obvious, having already been covered by an Emmy and Peabody-winning fake news show.
I’m saying they’re foolish to bury this story just to protect their image from those assassins who think that anyone who airs a news story that paints Bush in a negative light is biased. If the story is well supported, they should air it; if not, they should say that instead of this “it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election” nonsense.
I believe their stated reason for burying the story is a lie. There’s no journalistic obligation to only say nice things about the president in the month before an election. And what they’re covering up with that lie… well, I wouldn’t say it’s unethical not to run the story (unless they were pressured into it by the administration), but it sure is cowardly.
Well, if the facts you provided are correct and whole, I think we both can agree on at least one of your suggestions — CBS didn’t meet journalistic standards yet once again. Sometimes consistancy isn’t a virtue. CBS has it bad.
CBS will not run a legitimate news story because “the parallels” “are just too obvious?” What strange thinking on the part of CBS. Again ---- if true ---- CBS STILL hasn’t learned their lesson. If true, CBS is showing an inability to think critically, if not, their just unethical to the pore.
But ---- but ---- but ---- wouldn’t that be CBS’ saving grace. To show that there are “assassins” out to get them?? Assassins waiting to strike whenever CBS paints Bush in a negative light. They could do another 60 Minutes piece. Call it Assassins Made Us Do It. Shit ---- forgot. Under the new CBS, CBS II, you have to have evidence.
We agree. It’s yet another CBS lie. No lessons learned — they’ve been in the lie business too long. Unlearning old lessons takes time.
So! It’s ethical not to run the story because, as you’ve suggested the possibility, the Bush administration made 'em? I know it’s just your unsupported guess about Bush — but, if true, THAT’S ETHICAL?? Come on! ---- How? How would CBS not running a story because “they were pressured into it by the administration” be ethical?
Otherwise – If the first scenario you seem to imply is true AND the Bush administration isn’t the force making CBS not run the story ---- I repeat my original suggestion. Maybe CBS wants to re-check their story. Maybe it’s that innocent. Maybe they recognize themselves for what they are – or were. A deeply troubled organization. Maybe they’re trying to be better citizens than they’ve been. Sadly, they’re still lying while doing it all – if what you posted is true — whether they do it your way or mine.
Ooops – just noticed that on the last part – about the Bush Administration — you said "it’s unethical not to run the story (unless they were pressured into it by the administration) -------- didn’t notice the “unless.” So my last statement doesn’t apply. My bad –