SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (72542)9/22/2004 10:02:24 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793956
 
Bloggers keep eye on the news
‘Old media' learning to take sites seriously
By Mark Memmott
USA TODAY

TV networks, newspapers and other “old media” now know there's a vigilant pack of watchdogs who can rip holes in stories any time of day or night.

They're people who know a lot about, or have strong opinions about, thousands of sometimes arcane topics. And they're sharing that information on the Internet 24 hours a day.

Some are Internet “bloggers,” who may or may not have expertise and may have biases — but who provide forums for debate. Others are people with a passion for particular topics, such as Jim Forbes, curator of an Internet site devoted to IBM Selectric typewriters, www.selectric.org, which has caught attention in recent weeks.

All came together to expose problems with memos critical of President Bush's National Guard service. Their role in discrediting the story has made clear they can't be ignored by other media, say journalists and Web experts.

In the case of the Guard documents, the questioning was led by sites such as powerlineblog.com and rathergate.com and by a writer known as “Buckhead.” The writer questioned the memos' authenticity on freerepublic.com within a few hours of the Sept. 8 60 Minutes broadcast in which they first appeared.

Buckhead has been identified in several media as conservative Atlanta lawyer Harry MacDougald. Reached Tuesday, MacDougald would “neither confirm nor deny” he is Buckhead.

“There's no question we all have to take them seriously,” says Terence Smith, media correspondent and senior producer at PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. “They do provide, at least potentially, a useful fact-checking function. … After all, there's an expert out there on everything.”

For the old media, “this must have been what it was like for the Catholic Church when movable type was invented,” says Jack Shafer, who writes a media column called “Press Box” for the online magazine Slate. “Until then, the church controlled who would be the scribes.”

In the case of the alleged Texas Air National Guard documents, Buckhead and others pointed to many clues indicating the documents may have been produced by a modern computer, not an early '70s typewriter, as would have had to be the case if they are authentic.

CBS initially defended its work. One network executive, Jonathan Klein, referred to bloggers as loners who sit home alone in pajamas and spin fantastic tales.

In fact, Web sites run by single individuals and bloggers are frequently wrong because they so often are just bulletin boards for rumors and gossip, Internet experts say. But most bloggers also tend to correct their mistakes quickly.

“We dash things off,” says John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and a blogger himself who writes most often about Internet and high technology issues. “But if it needs to be rewritten, it is within an hour many times.”

For some media experts, the documents episode underscores a troubling fact about this year's political reporting. With just six weeks left in the presidential campaign, the media experts say it appears the stories the news media will be most remembered for reporting are about memos that might be forgeries and things that happened 30 years ago on a river in Vietnam. Those stories focus on charges — all challenged — leveled by a group of Vietnam War veterans at Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.

Many editors say they recognize what's happening and hope to use the time between now and Election Day, Nov. 2, to put more substance into the news they report.

“I'm reaching the point where I want to ratchet down considerably the volume of coverage we give to the campaigns' back-and-forth and ratchet up the coverage we give to where the candidates stand on the issues,” says Douglas Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland.









Find this article at:
usatoday.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (72542)9/22/2004 10:11:31 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 793956
 
Memos, lies and the CBS tape

washtimes.com

<font color=blue>"We are confident about the chain of custody"<font color=black> of these documents, a CBS spokeswoman told the New York Times on Sept. 14. We hope some aspiring novelist is taking notes because, as retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett acknowledged Monday to USA Today, <font color=blue>"This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie." <font color=black>

Mr. Burkett, recently outed by CBS News as the source of the now-discredited Texas Air National Guard memos allegedly written by President Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, has recently shed light on that <font color=blue>"chain."<font color=black>

The story begins in March, when Mr. Burkett, who had just been on MSNBC's "Hardball" discussing Mr. Bush's Guard service, received a call from a mysterious woman he calls Lucy Ramirez. Previously, Mr. Burkett had identified the source of the memos as one George Conn, another former Texas National Guard officer, conveniently abroad in Europe. In an e-mail to USA Today, Mr. Conn denied any involvement with the Killian memos. Mr. Burkett himself admits that he had lied about his source as a way of protecting her.

In their conversation, Lucy Ramirez explained how she had in her custody damaging documents to Mr. Bush and scheduled a meeting with Mr. Burkett to hand them over. That meeting occurred on or around March 3 at a livestock show in Houston. But, according to Mr. Burkett, Lucy Ramirez didn't show up. Instead, as he told USA Today, an unknown <font color=blue>"man handed him an envelope and quickly left."<font color=black> After receiving the memos, Mr. Burkett said he stopped off at a Kinko's store in Waco and made copies. In the parking lot outside, Mr. Burkett said he then burned the originals, pursuant to Lucy Ramirez's wishes. Over the next few days, Mr. Burkett said he hid the copies <font color=blue>"in cold storage"<font color=black> at an undisclosed location 100 miles from his home in Baird.
<font color=red>
Then, apparently, five months go by.<font color=black> Five months in which this very vociferous anti-Bush partisan sits on the most damaging documents yet found that all but seal a case he's been making for years. Consider, also, that on Aug. 13, in an online post, Mr. Burkett wrote: <font color=blue>"I have found no documentation from Lt. Col. Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to ... cover for the failures of 1Lt. Bush."<font color=black>

Then suddenly, on or around Aug. 21, Mr. Burkett contacts former Sen. Max Cleland, indicating that he had potentially damaging information about Mr. Bush's service. Mr. Cleland apparently told Mr. Burkett to contact the Kerry campaign directly. According to Mr. Burkett, he then <font color=blue>"gave them the information."<font color=black> In another online post, Mr. Burkett said he contacted the Democratic National Committee, but they were apparently <font color=blue>"afraid to do what [he] suggest[ed]."<font color=black>

In early September, a CBS producer phoned Joe Lockhart, former Clinton press secretary and senior Kerry adviser, asking him to call Mr. Burkett. According to Mr. Burkett, he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign. CBS News denies there was any deal. Mr. Lockhart acknowledges he called Mr. Burkett but that it was a one-time conversation and the disputed memos were not discussed.

By Sept. 3, CBS producer Mary Mapes had some of the documents in her possession and began writing the story that would air on "60 Minutes II" on Sept. 8. Meanwhile, in the very same week, the Kerry campaign launched <font color=blue>"Operation Fortunate Son,"<font color=black> a campaign video that depicts Mr. Bush as <font color=blue>"a very fortunate son who uses connections and pulls strings for special favors,"<font color=black> according to an AP story dated Sept. 9. The story also mentioned <font color=blue>"newly unearthed memos by the late Col. Jerry B. Killian"<font color=black> as being part of the ad.

On the face of it, Mr. Burkett's story hardly instills confidence. It is shockingly sad that CBS News fell for such obvious trickery. But it is also just as sad that CBS News permitted partisan bias to govern its judgment on a story.

So, this convoluted chain ends with Mr. Lockhart — a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign. Is it believable that Mr. Burkett, at no time during his conversation with Mr. Lockhart mentioned the documents in his possession, as Mr. Lockhart contends? Is it believable that Ms. Mapes never mentioned to Mr. Lockhart that CBS was planning on using these documents in a story about the president's Guard service? Finally, is it believable that the Kerry campaign's launch of <font color=blue>"Operation Fortunate Son"<font color=black> the day after the "60 Minutes II" story aired was entirely coincidental?


washtimes.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (72542)9/22/2004 10:19:07 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 793956
 
CBS owes president apology

<font size=3>washtimes.com
By Joe M. Allbaugh

<font size=4>George W. Bush has twice served his country loyally. He is doing so now as its 43rd president, and he did so as a member of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The recent allegations against Mr. Bush regarding his National Guard service are nothing new. And, as has been proven before, they are without merit. The truth is that Mr. Bush performed his Guard duty with honor during a difficult time in our country. Furthermore, he now serves our country with dignity and honor as president and commander-in-chief during an equally difficult time.

For anyone who might question the integrity and honor of service in the National Guard, I call on you to remember that in the days after the terrorist attacks on September 11, it was the brave men and women of the National Guard from many states who patrolled the skies over our nation's cities. The members of the National Guard are ready to protect this country at a moment's notice, just as Mr. Bush was trained to do and just as many are doing around the globe today.
<font color=red>
CBS News has learned an all-too-painful lesson that is taught to first-year journalism students: The message means nothing if the facts are wrong and the source has no credibility. In our society, either you have credibility or you don't. Bill Burkett has no credibility.
<font color=black>
Mr. Burkett has, in the past, simply made up stories about President Bush and about me. He has claimed that he overheard me calling for the <font color=blue>"sanitizing"<font color=black> of George Bush's Guard records. I can assure you that I never told anyone to cleanse Mr. Bush's records. My parents taught me early on that credibility and integrity are not to be compromised. I learned that lesson well.

It's now clear that CBS did not do its homework. If it had, then it would have known that Bill Burkett couldn't be trusted to tell the truth. Mr. Burkett now admits that he lied to the network about the source of the disputed documents. And, instead of owning up to its mistake, the network only added to its troubles by trying to build a defense of its tactics and its now deeply-tarnished credibility. It is unfortunate that CBS did not fully research the documents, particularly in light of the concerns expressed by their own document analysts.

Even its apology is not really an apology, CBS News President Andrew Heyward only says that the network <font color=blue>"deeply regrets"<font color=black> having gone with the story. And Dan Rather — a Texan who should know better — simply said he was sorry for <font color=blue>"a mistake in judgment."<font color=black> Not good enough, gentlemen!

It's curious to me that CBS News appears to be more concerned about its own credibility with its viewers than in correcting the wrongs it has done. Simply put, CBS has a responsibility to verify the facts of a story before it is broadcast, not two weeks after it is questioned.

This whole affair reminds me of the kid whose mother accuses him of sneaking cookies before dinner. He insists he's innocent and puts up a bold defense until she hands him a mirror and points out the crumbs on his cheeks. Even then, he only says he's sorry he got caught.

If CBS wants to restore its credibility it needs to go one step further. The network and its anchorman need to recognize the harm created by its sloppy journalism and its arrogant stonewalling and apologize publicly and directly to Mr. Bush.

Now that these accusations have been proven false, once again, hopefully we as Americans can come to appreciate the great loyalty and dedication of President Bush.

Joe M. Allbaugh is president and CEO of the Allbaugh Co. He served as the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Bush until March 2003 and was chief of staff to then-Gov. Bush.

washtimes.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (72542)9/22/2004 10:37:20 AM
From: SBHX  Respond to of 793956
 
Unfortunately, few voters today even know of Neville Chamberlain or what damage he did to the world.

The world is a complex place, and simplistic solutions such as appeasement or unilateral disengagement will not work without total capitulation from the west.

Ronald Reagan actually said a few interesting things in his time.

If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma--predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?
...
I've often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she'd stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately and said, "Here now -- there now, put it back. That's for emergencies."

Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.

During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, "What kind of people do they think we are?" Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, "What kind of people do we think we are?" And let us answer, "Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well."


Reagan suffered the slings and arrows and insults from his 'critics', the academics in ivory towers labelled him a simpleton or worse, yet today, we can look back and realize that he was right, and his critics were totally and completely unequivocally wrong.