Dan Rather apologizes

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

quoting CBS
"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without
fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "

Even their "apology" is a brazen lie.

When they

1. Ignore document experts who are counseling them that their
sources have questionable authenticity

2. Ignore relatives of the decedent who are counseling them
that their sources have questionable authenticity

3. Ignore the secretary that wrote documents for the very unit
at issue, when she counsels them their sources have questionable
authenticity

4. Sweepingly adopt a signature and handwriting expert's
opinion on one portion of a document, and apply it to the whole, while
clearly leading the viewers to believe the whole are being vetted



Then it's really hard to take CBS seriously when they say they
are committed to fairness and truthfulness. They knew plenty
beforehand that indicated the docs were questionable. They cheerfully
and quite intentionally ignored anything that did not fit their
predetermined conclusions.

Ditto CNN's "Tailwind" fabrications about nerve gas
Ditto CBS/Rather's Viet Nam Vet's "expose" about PTSD
Ditto the NBC (Dateline ?) rigged gas tank explosions for
Chevy trucks in side impacts
Ditto the NY Times /Jayson Blair

Once upon a time, people actually investigated to see if the
points they presented were actually true.

Those days are sadly, long gone.

Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.

and a cast of thousands more...

(John S. Shinal) wrote in
:

Once upon a time, people actually investigated to see if
the points they presented were actually true.

Those days are sadly, long gone.

I can think of few better cases to support that than to watch the
average White House press conference and the invited journalists
almost complete lack of criticism or challenge phrases to what
they're being presented.

If I didn't know better I'd say it looks more like a prestigee
thing than sound critical journalism these days.


Regards...