Beldar - Update (Fri Sep 10 @ 12:30am): I don't think I've ever seen Ted Koppel so pleased with himself. I thought from the lead-in that ABC's "Nightline" was going to bury the CBS documents scandal altogether in another mushy piece about "negative campaigning." When they switched to Ted's opening on-camera lines, he gave an elaborate feint:
"At times, it is the sleaziest, the slimiest, the nastiest and most destructive element in American politics. The rest of the time, it's just brutal and manipulative. At all times in the hands of its most skilled operatives, it is devastatingly effective, and will probably determine who sits in the White House for the next four years.
What they call it is almost as deceptive in its tone as what its operatives do — "opposition research." What a musty, reassuringly academic phrase that is. "Opposition research." What could be more reasonable, after all, than researching your opponent's record for weaknesses, inconsistencies, outright lies if you're lucky? It has been raised to the level of a dark science involving not just what to reveal, but how, and when."
But then out came the stiletto, as the camera zoomed in:
"Above all else, though, the story cannot be a complete fabrication. It can be thirty years old, it can be one item out of context. But it has to contain at least a kernel of truth.
My old friend Dan Rather, for example, had himself a peach of a story on "60 Minutes" last night, raising more questions about the President's record in the Texas Air National Guard. Just so there's no misunderstanding, if someone had dropped that story in my lap and we'd been able to confirm it through our own sources, you would have seen it on "Nightline."
I have absolutely no idea how Dan got the story, but you have to believe that the Kerry Campaign was awfully pleased that he did.
Except that today, questions are being raised about the accuracy of one key element in the story."
Woof! My paraphrase, with the subtext: By strong implication, there was not a "kernel of truth" in the CBS story on the documents. Nor any decent reporting, because it was "dropped in [Rather's] lap." ABC would have confirmed it through "our own sources" — and by implication, Rather and CBS News didn't. Where, oh where, did it come from? Dunno, but (implicit snort and snicker) Kerry's awfully pleased.
Friends and neighbors, this is what passes for glee among network correspondents.
The follow-up reporting on the documents was adequate, if tepid. Unnamed "conservative websites" were credited with first picking up on the discrepancies in the documents, but there weren't the usual snarky remarks about the blogosphere. However, a far more convincing case for the CBS documents can be made — and in the blogosphere, has already been made — simply from the face of the documents, ordinary citizens' experience with typewriters and word processors and memos, a few undisputed facts, and some common sense. The fact that Col. Killian's widow and son are doubtful is nice, but frankly, not terribly persuasive on its own to me — icing, not cake.
But other than repeating CBS' increasingly lame-looking defense that it subjected the documents to "independent experts," there was nothing in the "Nightline" story to suggest that these documents are anything other than forgeries. And if Koppel and his staff weren't convinced, that stiletto would've likely stayed in Koppel's pocket, rather than finding its place between his "good friend" Dan Rather's ribs.
Finally for tonight: The extremely unreliable, frequently badly wrong, but oftentimes entertaining Prowler column in The American Spectator claims to have heard from unnamed inside sources at ABC and a rival news program inside CBS that the documents were handed over to "60 Minutes" weeks ago; that even "60 Minutes" insiders had doubts about their provenance; and that they came directly from the Kerry campaign. I am extremely skeptical about this, and if I had to bet, would bet that at least the last part is wrong. I emphatically do not vouch for the Prowler or endorse its reporting or methods. Obviously, though, folks can't help speculating along these lines; and there's always the possibility that even a blind and ugly pig may have found a genuine acorn here. CBS has some serious 'splainin' to do. And if in fact the Kerry campaign is innocent of any complicity — which I'm still inclined to believe is the case, because I just can't believe they'd be that stupid — it should join in calls for CBS to come clean, ASAP, if only to put unfounded speculation to rest.
Posted by Beldar |
