Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (94542)	1/10/2005 1:40:10 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793843

What do you think of Heyward's future? The report was pretty charitable to him ( to say the least ).

To: LindyBill who wrote (94542)	1/10/2005 1:48:45 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

The bloggers are working their way through the 240 page report. Here are some comments from "Rathergate." Post-Broadcast Smoking Gun Filed under: * General — Mike @ 12:04 pm We’ll continue to update our posts below as we get through this report. However, one episode jumped out at me. Consider the scene: it’s September 14th, almost a week into the storm. CBS News is frantically trying to dig up experts to stick up for the Sept. 8th story and the documents in question. As a result, they post two statements on their website. (Pages 190-193) Go read the story. Not only did one expert flat-out-lie, but it looks like CBS News actually proposed edits to his statements to fit their plan. Pierce said that he told 60 Minutes Wednesday personnel that he could not authenticate the documents, but that he was asked by them to prepare a letter stating that he did. Pierce further advised counsel for the Panel that he was merely giving the client what it wanted and that he informed 60 Minutes Wednesday personnel they “could get into trouble” if they used the letter that he signed. Despite these warnings, the letter from Pierce was posted on the CBS News website shortly thereafter along with the Matley letter. Holy crap. Delay explained Filed under: * General — Kevin Craver @ 12:26 pm The Panel explains on page 33 why the hell it took so long for the report (which was issued Jan. 5 to CBS): The primary reason is that the investigation needed to be much broader than initially anticipated. The Panel believed at the outset that its investigation would focus primarily on the Killian documents. While the Killian documents were, indeed, important to the investigation, it also became clear relatively early in the Panel’s work that the problems affecting the Segment and its Aftermath involved much more than the Killian documents. The Panel and its counsel devoted essentially full time to this endeavor since September 22 and completed the Report in as thorough and expeditious a manner as possible. Not that it matters, seeing as how the panel finds it impossible to believe that the biases of the story’s principals were irrelevant to the mess-up. Rather needs to be fired. Period. Filed under: * General — Mike @ 12:40 pm Flip to page 206. Now, read Dan Rather’s apology. We all saw it broadcast, and found it wanting. Now, flip to page 208. After that apology, Rather gave an interview to WCBS. The panel asked Dan about this interview - and the result is damning. The Panel asked Rather about his interview with Marcia Kramer. Rather said that he did not want to do the interview or the apology on September 20, but Heyward and Schwartz asked him to do so. Rather said that he made his case as to why an apology was not appropriate and that management did not agree with him. Rather agreed to do the apology on September 20 and the Marcia Kramer interview because he is a “team player.” Rather informed the Panel that he still believes the content of the documents is true because “the facts are right on the money,” and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic. It is clear that Rather’s joining in the apology given his role as the correspondent on the Segment and his status as CBS News’ most visible presence was critical to its acceptance. The Panel finds his comments disavowing the apology to be troubling, notwithstanding that he said he regarded himself as carrying out what CBS News felt was in its best interest on September 20.

To: LindyBill who wrote (94542)	1/10/2005 2:03:15 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

If true that would belie the contention that this was an "independent" panel. An independent panel wouldn't care about the legal implications of its report. they are refusing to admit the documents are false for legal reasons.