And comparitively speaking, the Swifts look real, real good if compared to Adolph Hitler, Jeffery Dahmer, or Slug Signorino.
Not only will this dog not hunt, it won’t even sniff itself.
Color me confused. Because of something CBS did concerning an unrelated story, the lies of SVfT are somehow less untruthful than they were before?
Sorry, but IMO the premise of this thread lacks coherence.
I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that SimonX’s post gets completely ignored by Razorsharp.
The Swifties’ allegations go against many of their own previous statements regarding John Kerry, they are in opposition to official Navy records on which they signed off, and they are at variance with the recollections of every man on Kerry’s boat. At least one person depicted on their website has repeatedly sought to be removed from it because he gave an answer to an innocuous question which was later morphed into a condemnation of Kerry. They do not speak the Truth, nor are they particularly Swift.
CBS based a story on memos it believed to be genuine. Now we cannot prove them otherwise, we just can’t prove they are. The contents of the memos are beyond dispute- Bush used influence to dodge Vietnam and he refused to take a physical which just so happened to coincide with new drug tests. Nonetheless, CBS has brought in a third party investigative team to examine their behavior. When was the last time FOX did the same? Or O’Reilly? Or Scarborough? Or Hannity? Or Limbaugh? In my humble opinion, Dan Rather has more integrity in his little finger than the whole lot of them do in their large intestines, including the colon!
Speaking of logic, then there is the “logic” of those who claim that Evolutionary theory is superior to Creationism, all the while denying the differences that exist between the different racial groups that can be attributed to evolution.
Instead, when pointing out the differences, the “defenders of the faith” start preaching, “All humans are created the same.”
Whoa, whoa, careful, BJMoose, you don’t want to lose this argument by pulling a Godwin.
Razorsharp, I do apologize for messing up your name. As for the argument at hand here, I just don’t think it holds water. First of all, the media cases you mentioned, especially the first two, appear to be cases of individual deception that were motivated by the selfishness and sociopathic tendencies of the people involved. The jury is still out on who is truly responsible for the foul-up at CBS, but my money is on an overzealous news producer who, yes, may have been politically motivated, considering said producer put the creator of the memos in touch with Kerry’s campaign.
The Swifties, on the other hand, are an organized group of people who by all appearances are simply a tool of a larger Republican machine. (That may or may not include the Bush-Cheney campaign itself.). Janet Cook and Jayson Blair were individuals who obviously had some mental issues. The Swifties are the face of a well-organized smear campaign. Biiiiig difference. None of these people/groups are defensible, but I think the comparison is simply not valid, and the actions of one do not make anyone else look better/worse.
Nice try, but your stated subject for this thread is journalistic ethics, apparently. Let’s continue discussing that, shall we?
Let me illustrate Razorsharp’s argument as he has laid it out so far:
-
CBS aired a story that was made up, and when outside groups produced evidence of the lie, CBS acknowledged that they were wrong.
-
When a NYT reporter makes up stories, and outside groups piece together the lies, the Times fires the reporter and issues an apology.
-
A Washington Post reporter gets a prize for journalism, her deceptions come to light, and the prize is taken away from her.
-
The Swiftboat vets make up a lie, spread it as far and as wide as their advertising dollars allow, and when confronted with evidence that their claims are lies, they deny the evidence and continue to maintain that they are telling the truth.
Oh, NOW I see why the Swifties look good in comparison. 
First CarnalK - you have absolutely no idea what “perch,” as you call it, I inhabit – just like I have absolutely no right to accuse you of being someone who blindly marches in lock step with certain types of opinion on this Board — no matter the evidence to indicate the contrary. So why not stick with the issues.
Second, as long as you take the position that CBS had to be “self-corrected” by others - not CBS correcting itself - I have no problem with that position. But CBS’ actions seem to indicate that they had no intention of “self-correcting.” In fact, it appears that after CBS was caught, they made an attempt to hide that fact by calling their source “unimpeachable.” Now either CBS simply lied when they did that or they were grossly negligent in their examination of Burkett, their source. Burkett is far from “unimpeachable” and, whether you like the fact or not, CBS was far from “self-correcting.”
SNenc: Help me here. If I’ve ever heard of a Godwin I’ve forgotten what it is. Fill me in, por favor.
(I’m not worried about winning an argument here cuz there seems to be no meat to the OP.)
You are, as usual, confusing two separate groups.
There are the proponents of science who note that there are not sufficient differences among races to even justify the term being used as a category of persons (since such minor differences as exist are scattered across a continuum that does not provide coherent and definitive boundaries) and there are those proponents of philosophy who note that there are no conditions that legitimately argue in favor of legal sanctions against any perceived group based on birth and who generally use the touchstone of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (written 83 years prior to the publication of Origin of Species) to find the language that describes their point.
On the other hand, it certainly does not surprise me to find Razorsharp as a proponent of Creationism.
Ah, I think I’ve got the hang of your ‘logic’.
Creationists have no evidence, but call the other side liars. They receive money from fanatical types. When pressed for evidence, they refuse, but keep making attacks on the other side.
Swift boat types …
You’re not seriously equating shoddy journalism with deliberate deception, are you?
BJMoose said it best, methinks.
How about some concrete examples of the differences that scientists (aka "defenders of the faith) refuse to acknowledge? It’s very hard to argue against such a sweeping generality.
Scientists routinely recognize immunilogical differences, for example. But be careful here. It is certainly accurate to talk of “frequencies of occurances that vary by ethnicity”, but it would be hard to come up with a trait that “evey mumber of group X, ***and ******only ***members of group X, exhibits”.
Janet Cook’s article appeared in 1980. I’ll never trust the Washington Post again.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention when the Chicago Tribune claimed Dewey won. Oh, wait, they’re a conservative paper…
No problem.
Here is the definition.
No problem, but get off my case. I ain’t the one who brought up the subject of evolution vs creation.
Whadda ya think?
Now which is it? Shoddy journalism or deliberate deception?
Yes, CBS has turned into a shoddy organization as far as the straight dope is concerned. However, using mistakes on the part of A, B, and C in no way can justify D’s actions. And, with the exception of CBS all of the organizations cited in the OP disclosed the fabrications and plagiarism themselves upon discovery.
The OP’s argument is similar to the nonsense thrown back at you when you question the Iraq invasion: “Do you want to let terrorists have free rein?”
In fairness, there is one question in the OP that I can read and still keep a straight face:
Yes they do. Quite often. Might explain why they are so often called “mainstream.”
SNenc: Ah yes, that Godwin’s Law. Well, no sign yet that it works in the present case.
Moody Bastard: Thanks for the tip o’ th’ hat. I’ve waited several months for a good chance to use that line.