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: jlallen who wrote (94624)	1/10/2005 10:51:13 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793708

.CBS should lose its broadcast license. That's what Putin would do in Russia. Not here.

To: jlallen who wrote (94624)	1/11/2005 12:04:24 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793708

CBS Report: Not Quite a Whitewash LGF The long-awaited CBS Report is out -- and Little Green Footballs is still offline due to the DDOS attack on the Hosting Matters network. Here's the article on the report at CBS News; the only one to be fired is, as many suspected, Mary Mapes, although three other CBS employees were "asked to resign." The report's large, and has a surprising amount of meat in it; it's not the total whitewash some expected. I'm still reading, but Sarah D. points out a really damning passage strongly indicating that Mapes was trying to "change the momentum of the election," as Mapes associate Michael Smith proposes getting Bill Burkett a book deal: <<< Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine . . . What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election . . . . What I am asking is in this best case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent sized advance payment, and get it turned around quickly. >>> The report explicitly denies that political bias was a factor in the pattern of lying and covering up that followed the initial 60 Minutes II segment, but it's quite obvious this is another obfuscation. I'm still reading, and will have more thoughts as I continue to absorb it; but this is going to give the blogosphere a lot to chew over. (Thanks to evariste for allowing me to post at Discarded Lies!) UPDATE: If you had a suspicion that Dan Rather's apology on September 20 was ... uh, less than sincere, you were right: <<< 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. >>> UPDATE: Sarah D. points out another juicy section of the report, as CBS execs became aware that none of their experts would authenticate the memos and exchanged increasingly heated emails: <<< This prompted an immediate reaction from Schwartz: We need two things: 1. We need our expert available NOW to speak to all those who are reporting this story. We need the expert. Now. We need him now. 2. We need the talking points that can be crafted into a statement of defense and talked about by Dan when he calls people. #1 is essential RIGHT NOW. We NEED THAT EXPERT. [W]ithout him, we’re TOAST. Then we need #2, about six seconds later. >>> <<< Mapes, meanwhile, appears to have been focused on the superscript “th” and on producing a piece for the September 10 CBS Evening News. She sent an e-mail to Schwartz, stating that they had put the superscript “th” issue to rest by finding the superscript “th” in the official Bush records: [F]OR THE 100TH TIME, THE “TH” ISSUE IS GONE. WE HAVE EXAMPLES FROM THE “OFFICIAL” WHITE HOUSE DOCS. WE’RE SET. >>> After which her boss fired back: <<< The problem, Mary, is one of perception. As far as the press is concerned, the “th” issue is NOT gone. It’s very much alive, and they have people crawling all over it. If we wait to address the issue until tonight’s news, we will DIE in the press tomorrow. Die. As in…dead. You tell me. How do I get the message out RIGHT NOW, as in RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, that the “th” thing is no longer an issue? >>> UPDATE: Michelle Malkin points out Appendix 4 (PDF) to the CBS report, on the web site of Dick Thornburgh's law firm, containing the analysis of another expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded that the documents were (shocka!) produced on a computer with the Times New Roman font! <<< In summary, Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were generated on a computer. He does not believe that any manual or electric typewriter of the early 1970s could have produced the typeface used in the Killian documents. He believes the IBM Selectric Composer "Press Roman" typestyle is very close to the typestyle used in the Killian documents but has noticeable differences . In addition, he told the Panel that the IBM Selectric Composer did not have the ability to produce the superscript "th" and the "#" symbol as a standard feature, and he believes it would have been unlikely for a TexANG office to have had those features customized on the machine. Therefore, he doubts the authenticity of the Killian documents because in his opinion they could only have been produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle that would not have been available in the early 1970s. >>> The original report comes to no definitive conclusion about the authenticity of the documents, but Appendix 4 makes this equivocation seem rather odd. by Charles discardedlies.com