Has anyone seen so much as a peep from the investigative panel looking into the CBS forged-document scandal?
CBS had *almost * started to redeem themselves in my eyes by appearing to appoint a serious team to look into the matter. But then they ruined it when one of the top executives said that he didn’t want the results to come out before November 2nd - so as not to “influence the election”.
Oh sure! It’s OK for CBS to air a story clearly designed to influence the election! But if it turns out to be faked, it’s *not * OK for the facts to come out because it might influence the election!
More importantly, though, CBS’s statement is a red flag, a direct admission that there’s going to be more to the final report than what we know now. We’re not just going to hear about a spiteful Bill Burkett and an over-zealous CBS news staff - we’re going to hear something that would “influence the election” if told today. But, even after all the shenanegans that CBS has pulled so far (and their non-apologies for it), they’re still willing to straight say that they just don’t want to tell us about it. Have they no shame :mad: ?
Please, though, don’t turn this in to yet another Bush-Kerry thing. I don’t particularly care whether CBS is covering up for people at the DNC or for Karl Rove. The question here is 1) when will the report be out, and 2) who does CBS think they are, anyway?
After the election, when CBS can say either, “Look, Bush won anyway, so it’s no big deal”, or “Look, Kerry won anyway, so it’s no big deal”.
They think they are in charge of telling those dumb voters what to think, and if they have to cut a few ethical corners to get the job done, fire a few junior staffers if you get caught and stonewall. People lose interest, and back to business as usual.
The media elite has two sets of standards. One is for them, and one for everybody else. Abiding by their standards is mandatory for everybody else. Deciding whether to abide by their own standards for themselves is optional.
It’s not like we have learned anything rational people haven’t known for years. Most of the major media is DNC lite. Once in a while they get too arrogant for their own good, and make it impossible even for the most dedicated duck-speakers to defend them. Then they have to circle the wagons until some milestone is passed. Then back to business as usual.
CBS didn’t want to influence the election! That’s a load. And CBS appears to be still at it –— Note the statement attributed to Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, about airing CERTAIN breaking “news” for just before election day — “our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn’t hold”
NBC News has pretty much pulled the plug on the whole “our crew was with the troops when they got there, and the stuff was already gone” story. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003805. Drudge and CNN jumped all over the story, a bit prematurely, it would appear.
I see Brutus can’t distinguish between citing a blog that cites legitimate news sources and citing a blog that pulls claims out of Matt Drudge’s unsubstantiated ass.
The point being made is that while CBS professes a concern with 'influencing the election," they seem to be selective. When it comes to the decision to delay the investigation into the use of forged military documents, a story I assume CBS thinks might “influence” the election in Bush’s favor, they delay. While announcing this they were “holding” a story about “missing” weapons, which they planned to ‘air’ just two days before the election. This is undisputed.
Now the question becomes — why all of this artificial timing of the news? Why should CBS even be concerned with “influencing the election” IF there are honest news reporters – honest reporters who are reporting news AS it becomes available for airing? Is CBS timing news around the election? Considering CBS’ growing reputation as a biased news organization, I hope not.
So, have we abandoned all pretense that CBS news is actually a journalistic entity?
We’ve just accepted that they are agents of the Democratic “side”, responsible for withholding information on their fraudulent reporting until the Republican “side” coughs up some concession?
Then they should lose their news credentials and register as a an arm of the DNC.
Well, I said from the get go that it was a tu quoque, what more do you want? We have two entities. Both in theory non partisan. One has been shown to be withholding a potentially damning report until after the election. One is suspected of doing the same. Your outrage over ABC sounds pretty partisan if when you exhibit none of the same on the actions of the CIA.
See? This is the kind of trouble one gets into when one brings a logical fallacy into GD.
Well – that would be an answer to the question - What is Tu Quoque? — but, sadly, I didn’t ask you want it was – I asked you to provide substance for your assertion and explain how that’s connected with the issue.
And why is the heck is this a “logical fallacy” — first, this thread is about CBS (not ABC) and it’s about CBS’ statement that it doesn’t want to “influence the election.”
Last - I doubt this tu quoque thing you’ve introduced fits – but if it does — by all means ‘fan it out’ so we can see it - lets make sure there aren’t 1s under those 100s —
It isn’t! It’s a Tu quoque! A Logical Fallacy! A fallacious argument! Did I mention that before? It’s an amazingly common tool on these boards, and it is recognized as the fallacy that it is. But it also has a role of pointing out disingenuous outrage. It was in that capacity in which it was introduced.
