It's funny, I just finished reading JG when you made this post. I agree that the affiliates are key, and while the Rathergate email yesterday to major Viacom shareholders was a good idea, something needs to be organized to communicate with the affiliates, but not a mass email. Affiliates are vulnerable around the "local" accounts that advertise, a few calls from "paying" customers cancelling their ads because of danron would mean more than we can imagine. What can we do? Give me some ideas.

I have a list of affiliates, but that would still be a sort of mass e-mail ...

When interviewed last night, Pat Caddell quoted a lawyer friend who believes that the actions may be criminal in Texas. How about contacting the Texas Attorney General and ask for an investigation?

King of fools has a cool picture of the CBS eye on top of Barad-Dur from a few days ago. I know I'm tolkein dork to know that name.

It seems to me the blogs largely have beaten Rather. The common wisdom among all but the most extreme sources is that the documents are forgeries. Even someone like Kevin Drum who's been pursuing Bush's national guard service for a long time admitted a while ago the documents were fake. If Rather's intention was to push the electorate away from Bush, I believe he has entirely failed; if anything, the whole fiasco might slightly damage Kerry.

The real damage here has been to CBS's credibility as a news source and to the creditibility of main stream news sources in general. This is something I regret; I feel we need a stronger more independent press, one that actually analyzes issues and doesn't limit itself to passing along what other people are saying. With the rise of the Internet and the sophistication of political groups in pushing their own agendas, I feel this is more important than ever before. Unfortunately, only CBS can take the steps necesary to restore its credibility.

What bothers me most about this whole affair isn't how CBS was snoockered (although that was pretty bad); what bothers me most is the high-handed way they responded to critics. They wouldn't make the originals available, or even decent copies of the originals, they wouldn't name the experts who had authenticated the documents, and they didn't clearly state why the material should be taken seriously. In all this they took the attitude that we should just trust them.

To be honest, I don't think getting Dan Rather fired is the solution to the problem at this point. He's lost his credibility, and I think it would be to CBS's advantage to let him go, but I think the fault in all this goes beyond Dan Rather. After all, journalists and reporters are supposed to push the envelope, and it is editors and news departments that hold them in check. To my mind, the most frightening failure wasn't with Dan Rather, but with the CBS news department as a whole. What I'm looking for at this point is for the CBS news department to show some sign it recognizes its own high handedness and to take steps to create policies to become more transparent and to prevent this in the future. Some thought given to the use of anonymous sources would also be helpful. I think the focus on Dan Rather personalizes and politicizes the debate in a way that's not helpful. I would also like to see the rest of the main stream media take more responsibility for CBS's failure, as it reflects upon them all. Ernest Miller makes similar points in his post "Incompetent or Unethical? The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism Over the Killian Memos"
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006222.php#more

--Rick Taylor

I'm ahead of the curve, it seems, having fired Dan Rather, CBS news, CBS network and the local CBS affilliate a week
ago.

It was enough for me, under the circumstances, started the stonewalling game.

OUr tiny boycott hurt our local affiliate in the pocket, DH won't buy any advertising time on that station unless and until CBS acknowleges the forgery and it's own fault in the debacle, and heads roll for the egregiousness of the error and the bias that led to it.

Bill said: "But this all causes me to wonder: why is it necessary to use what essentially amounts to economic pressure in a bid for CBS to recognize its own published "News Standards and Practices?" It's sad, really."

I agree that it's sad, and that it's even unfair that the MSM apparently doesn't play by the rules they require everyone else to adhere to.

Getting past that though, I think it's wonderfully ironic that it is the "Free Market" that can, if applied, be the instrument to bring down Dan.

Afterall, in the end, isn't that what we really want? What better way to reinforce our faith in Capitalism than to see it refute the neo-aristocracy of the left's propagandists?

It is truly a measure of the people of this country. Of their resolve to not accept lies.

Now, once Rather is stripped of his position, and tries to fade away in disgrace, I am all for the government to then step in and prosecute him for any crimes he may be guilty of. That'll just be icing on the cake for me. I think it's important that there be some sort of prosecution out of this incident. Fraud and forgery used to influence an election should be punished severely.

Rick:

I agree with most of what your are saying, but personally I am fed up with this kinda stuff from the major media outlets. I essentially agree with Bernard Goldberg on the causes of this.

It is my opinion these guys need a big slap in the face starting with CBS as they have just proven themselves the worst by being complicit ( perhaps through negligence but that is no excuse ) in what can only be termed election fraud.

They are like drunk drivers. They don't mean to hurt anyone, but they are still criminally negligent. Drunk on their own brand of ideology.

I agree with the summary theme: we need to make inaction more painful to CBS than corrective action. If we do not do that, then CBS will just let this kind of fade and slide away.

So we all need to keep spreading the word...some people still don't know about this, or know very much about this, and we need to educate them. Word of mouth has taken down many a corporation...we can certainly take down CBS. We need to work hard to make CBS utterly distrusted, despised, and a joke among broadcasting.

And yes it is sad that we even have to do this. If CBS had any ethics at all, they would have owned up to their error. Of course, if CBS has any ethics at all, it wouldn't have broadcast the story in the first place.

And I still speculate that the only reason why CBS is digging itself in and is so willing to go to the mat over this is because they are covering for someone really big...like the Kerry Kampaign/DNC.

Having the source of the documents officially identified would add greatly to the CBS woes. CBS won't identify the source, that's for sure. But remember that USAToday also has the documents and, unlike CBS, they are not empretzled with the story. If USAT can be persuaded to take the final step and declare the documents a fraud, that would allow them to identify the source. Then blammo, another shot in the CBS shorts.

In my opinion if they are covering up ( and that is certainly an If ) then that will probably only be uncovered by a criminal investigation or some really crack investigative journalism.

But either way I think its important to instill some accountability.

I wrote to sponsors, I wrote to my affiliate, signed that FEC petition, and I gave Bill $100. But frankly I'm running out of ideas. Maybe I will write to original 60 minutes and tell them I have lost faith in their entire oragnization since this obviously goes beyond just 60 Minutes II.

It's funny you should mention Mordor...
Hugh Hewitt is trying to generate a Lord of the Rings analogy for RatherGate...

Steve Bragg
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS

Whad'ya know: I just got a return phone call from the Station Manager at my local CBS affiliate.

I thanked him profusely for returning my call. He's very concerned, he actually said that he disagreed completely with the stand CBS News has taken, we discussed the definition of "censorship", my arguing that he making an economic decision to not broadcast something on his station was not "censorship" - that being something only a government can do. He was not sure how his stations ratings were effected, not being in a big enough market to get "overnights", but agreed that it had an overall negative impact. He had received lots of complaints. He had passed them on.

Bottom Line: Nothing to change around here, thanks for calling.

Next step: Advertisers.

I am still trying to think this all through, and my thoughts aren't necesarily all that coherent at this point. Also, as a Democrat, I may be coming at this from a different angle than others on this forum. The thing that worries me is that CBS and to a lesser degree the mainstream media might take the wrong lesson from this. In the face of a boycott or outside pressure, they may decide to take fewer risks, do less investigative reporting, and stick to the he-said/she-said style of reporting that makes most of the mainstream news so sterile. I actually want them to take more risks and to do more investigative reporting; but I want them to do it responsibly. I'm not sure what the best way to pressure them in this direction is.

--Rick Taylor

FWIW, here is what I sent to KMOV-TV News in St. Louis, MO. I sent a separate e-mail directly to one of their investigative reporters who also hosts a morning radio talk show that has been dogging Rathergate since Day 1 (his politics are center-right).

[introductory blather referencing a prior e-mail]...I notice this afternoon that there is nothing on the KMOV website addressing this controversy. Of course, I am aware that KMOV News and CBS's 60 Minutes II have absolutely no relationship, but don't you think it might be a good idea for KMOV, and specifically the news division, to post a statement on this issue and head off criticism from people with no knowledge of network/affiliate relations? And a claim that local affiliates are not responsible for network broadcast content will absolutely *not* suffice, many people might interpret that as an endorsement of CBS News journalistic practice and think that those standards are used at KMOV News. Perhaps a statement clarifying KMOV News standards of journalistic practice and how they differ from those of CBS News might be helpful, addressing the following issues:

1. Would KMOV News have used different methods to verify the documents?

2. Would KMOV News have ignored any expert advice that conflicted with the story's thesis?

3. Overall, does the Bush National Guard story as delivered on 60 Minutes II meet KMOV News standards of journalistic practice? Would KMOV News have run a similar story?

4. Most important of all: the steps that KMOV will take to help its network parent salvage its journalistic reputation.

It certainly appears to be in KMOV's best interests to address this issue and it is certainly confounding that they have chosen not to do so to this point, at least in a way that the public can see. Perhaps that will change in the near future.

Non-threatening but firm. The key is point 4: what are *you*, the affiliate, going to do to rectify this situation?

UPDATE ON LIBERAL THUGGERY:

-[The] International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues.

What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them.

I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the fullest extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise.

General President James A. Williams
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

- Apparently some actions are too eggregious even for the terminally glandular left...

- Much more likely, it didn't hurt that there was a ground swell of conservative construction company owners threatening to stop doing business with IUPAT supporting companies ... Ahh the power of the pocketbook...The most ardent ideologies fall away quickly when the rent is at stake...

Rick:
I don't know what to tell you about what lesson they will learn. Frankly I'm not optimisitc about their ability to learn.

But I can tell this for certain. Misinformation is worse then no information at all. When a boxer feints it is analogous to misinformation. A feint is a setup for a hit. This analogy implies intention, but even without intention the principle is the same: you move in the wrong direction.

re: Tongue Boy

That looks pretty good to me. You might add something about the issue of transparency. Would KMOV have made high quality reproduction of the documents available for outside examination, would it have named the experts who verified the documents and detailed what they had actually seen and verified, would they have been straightforward in revealing conflicting testimony from other qualified experts who examined the documents? The lack of transparency bothers me more than any other aspect of this whole affair.

--Rick Taylor

The media will not learn if Dan & co are forced out. They did not learn from Glass, they did not learn from Blair, they did not learn from the BBC "Sexed Up" scandal. They did not learn from the Audi 5000 scandal, nor the "exploding gas tank" scandal.

I still get angry about their abuses, but I've long since given up hoping for better. Their influence is fading, however. To paraphrase McArthur, "the MSM will never die, it will just fade away". A man can dream, can't he?

On the plus side, the MSM can be trusted to make sure the left-wing cocoon is nice and comforting, right up until the republicans spank them at election time.

ctob,

I looked at King of fools for the Tower picture, it's OK

Hunter wrote:

"Apparently some actions are too eggregious even for the terminally glandular left..."

It's funny how quickly people will accept accounts like this without any hard evidence so long as they accord with their own beliefs. I read the story about the Parlock family and saw the photo, and my first response was it was awful if it actually happened, but there was no hard evidence and I wasn't going to make any assumptions one way or the other. Later I found out that Mr Parlock has told a story like this in the two presidential elections before this one.

From 2000:

"Parlock and his son, clad in white button-down shirts and ties, took their place in front of the Capitol steps and waited. As the rally got going, they started raising their signs and people immediately began stealing them, Parlock said...'Three guys came up and squeezed me in and one grabbed my arms and pulled them down and another took the sign,' Parlock said. ...'Another guy came up and tried to grab the sign but I had a good hold of it and he stumbled and bumped into other people and started a ruckus,' he said. Parlock said the police ejected the man from the rally."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x828458

From 1996:

"The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read 'Remember Vince Foster,' the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents... 'It must have been a strict Democrat who did this,' Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. 'Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest.'"

Now maybe this fellow is just very unlucky, but I think you should take what he says with a grain of salt until we hear more. I promise to do the same the next time I hear something about a rabid Bush supporter stealing a Kerry sign.

Now, let me be clear that I don't know that Mr. Parlock is lying. Maybe he did have his signs physically ripped away from him in the last three elections running. I just think it's incumbent on all of us not to leap to conclusions when we see things that support what we want to believe in. There are people out there, both on the left and the right, who will say practically anything, so it's important for us to have standards of evidence.
It's important for us to ask questions like who's testifying, do we have cause to suspect they are objective, do we have cause to suspect they are reliable, what is the supporing hard evidence for what they are saying? And it's important be even more skeptical when someone is saying something we want to believe. And yes, I think if Dan Rather had followed these principles, CBS wouldn't be in the mess it is now.

--Rick Taylor

Ctob,

I lost the rest of my post... Somewhere on the net there was a better image, done last week. Picture the Tower of Baldur as it collapses, leaning over and breaking off, with the red eye of Sauron still there and the CBS logo blended in.... can somebody locate it again?

Rick -

Agree with you about making sure the Parlock story is true (and I'm voting for Bush, so no partisan viewpoint here). My first thought as a parent when I saw the photo was "is this the best place to take your 3-year-old daughter?" It seems as though the father was potentially putting his child at risk, as would be the case at any political rally because tempers on either side can flare. I would not have taken my child at that age to an event like that.

Branford & Rick: Excerpted from houblog.com:

"I mean, obviously, I see the point. The guy endangered a 3 year old little girl by taking her to a place where they were bound to be accosted. If I had a child, I don't think I would, or could do that.

But for crying out loud... the moment you conceed that "you shouldn't do x" because the goon squad will get you, you have conceeded your beliefs from fear! Which is what they want. The goons of the left WANT to intimidate you into silence. It's o­nly the first step in "divide and conquer" because if every opponent is silenced, then each is individually outnumbered."

More, including a suggested solution, at the link in the name below.

re ubu:

Just to be clear, I never argued that Mr. Parlok was at fault for taking his daughter to the event. If someone really did grab a sign from a three year old girl, tear it up, and throw it back at her, that's viscious, and I think we'd all agree to that.

My point was that some conservatives (including one that posted here) were quick to take this story at face value and to draw conclusions from it. I pointed out that not only was there no supporting evidence beyond the picture of the girl with the torn sign and Mr Parlok's testimony, but it was suspicious that Mr. Parlok had told similar stories in the previous two elections (please reread my previous post if you missed this).

It's the same on the liberal side. When there's some picture of some conservative doing something terrible, many of the liberal blogs will post links to it and comment on it. And I believe that on some level we take comfort in this new proof of the black character of those we disagree with.

I don't think this is a liberal or a conservative thing, I think it's an ugly aspect of human nature. We like to demonize those we disagree with because it makes us feel righteous ourselves. We are quick to believe stories we hear that support this desire, without supporting evidence (recall how quickly we liberals picked up the false story that partisans had booed at the announcemnt of Clinton's illness at a Bush rally).

Now I read the message you referred me to. It is very ugly, and I am offended by it. Here's a further excerpt:

"So tell me, what is wrong with someone walking over to the guy and saying, 'Sir, I'm sorry but those signs are not welcome here. This is a rally for John Kerry, and we expect guests to behave accordingly and not disrupt the proceedings. Either surrender your signs or leave.'? Nothing."

Now how do we know this did not happen? Is there any supporting evidence beyond that of Mr. Parlok? I'm sure even Democrats sitting nearby might have been offended by what happened if it is the way it was described; where is their testimony?

The message you referred me to continues:

"But the left can't do that. They can't act like civilized people because they're NOT CIVILIZED. ... They are an octopus that looks like a mob. A central brain coordinates the various tentacles, but if you were just a poor, nearsighted fish swimming in the ocean, all those tentacles coming out of nowhere from various directions would look like an attack coming from several seperate creatures, a pack instead of a single creature. In some regards, the pack analogy is much truer. There is a central brain (about which I am learning more than I am comfortable with knowing), and then there are tentacles. Unlike true appendeges, they are little more than a pack of unguided attackers; the brain points them in a given direction, then looses them to wreak havoc o­n the target rather than controlling them minutely. The brain's goals are served, and it can sit back at a distance and claim it had nothing to do with the fish's death, even as it crams every tender morsel down it's throat. Of course, sometimes, it backfires."

So, the left (of which I am a member) cannot act civilized, because we are NOT CIVILIZED. I am a mere tentacle of the central brain of some octopus, etc. etc. etc. And what is the supporting evidence for this extraordinary conclusion? A picture from a political event and the testimony of a man, with no further hard evidence offered whatsoever. A man who has told similar stories about having his sign stolen by rabid Democrats in the last three elections running.

Now I believe that CBS news has a very special responsibility as a member of the mainstream media to keep high standards of integrity. And I believe that its violation of these standards is egregious and deeply troubling, and I believe it is right that the people here are are making a Herculean effort to hold them to account. But the sins committed by CBS, especially accepting evidence when it supports what you want to believe and ignoring it otherwise, are by no means unique to CBS.

--Rick Taylor

Ok, I've found a link that includes messages to people who were at the event with Mr. Parlok. Several people have posted messages that he came to a Kerry event with Bush signs looking for trouble. They say that he was asked repeatedly and politely not to display his signs. I know that Kerry signs aren't allowed at Bush events, so this hardly seems unreasonable. One person writes:

"Yes ma'am, he provoked them. Phil gave his son a sign and pushed the boy in front of him. Some young democrats tried to cover Phil's sign with their own. The boy dropped the sign and a worker grabbed at it. Phil then shoved the kid. When Phil's sign was covered up he placed his young daughter on his shoulders and gave her the sign. The girl was terrified by the people chanting and her father's actions. He used his children as pawns. He did not come to do anything other than disrupt the event and he used his children as a means to an end. He exchanged some angry words with the Kerry supporters when they attempted to hold their signs in front of his but none of them were physical with him. Now while I may think he possibly should have been left alone, I have none, nada, NO respect for a man going into a situation he knows is going to be heated and using his children as frickin targets."

http://huntingtonnews.net/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001898

So participants deny that anyone ripped a sign out of a three year old girl's hands. They admit to trying to grab it when it was dropped, which was wrong but hardly amounts to what they have been accused of doing. Contradicting the message that ubu directed me to, they say that he was asked politely to behave, and eventually to leave, but he was determined to make trouble. Now perhaps these people are all lying (they are all a part of the octopus-like left after all). Perhaps they really did rip a sign from a three year old girl. And perhaps Killian's secretary really did type up memos similar in spirit to the forgeries. But what is the evidence?

--Rick Taylor

Going after Rather is just what they're hoping you'll do. Think about it.

Before the memos, Kerry was getting hit every day. The Swift Boat Vets were in the news. Kerry was on the ropes and another week would have knocked him out of the ring.

Then CBS puts out a hit piece based on obviously faked documents. What happens? Kerry's lies are no longer the headlines. Instead of concentrating on giving Kerry the knockout blow, Bloggers decided to go after Rather and CBS. This gave Kerry a breathing space.

You have to decide which is more important? Getting Rather or hammering Kerry. Rather is a menace, but he's not running for President. I submit that Kerry should be our target at leaset until after the election. Then we can go for Rather.

Otherwise, the CBS document trap will have worked.

Corbett wrote:
"Before the memos, Kerry was getting hit every day. The Swift Boat Vets were in the news. Kerry was on the ropes and another week would have knocked him out of the ring. ... Then CBS puts out a hit piece based on obviously faked documents. What happens? Kerry's lies are no longer the headlines. Instead of concentrating on giving Kerry the knockout blow, Bloggers decided to go after Rather and CBS. This gave Kerry a breathing space."

Are you suggesting that CBS cooked up this "document trap" on purpose, passing off forged documents knowing they would be discovered and discredited, to help Kerry? That's even more creatively devious than the theory that Karl Rove masterminded it all to help Bush! :) I keep discovering that the right and left sides of the blogosphere are more similar than I had ever imagined.

Coincidentally, I've been annoyed recently because I think this whole document fiasco hurts Kerry. There's been some bad news recently from Iraq. There was a story about a National Intelligence Estimate that was very pessimistic. There was an awful incident in which an American helicopter fired on civilians, killing a Palestinian journalist on television. There have been reports that the resistance in Iraq is becoming more organized and more dangerous, and there are more cities that seem to be outside of American control. Kerry, rightly or wrongly, has been hammering Bush on just this issue. Surely the Bush administration would rather people pay attention to CBS's duplicity than the rest of the news right about now?

Besides, Bush is the incumbent and Kerry is the challenger. Doesn't the challenger need more coverage to have a chance to prove himself to the voters, especially when he's struggling in the polls? I certainly don't see how the focus on memo-gate (which also undermines the Democrats Fortunate Son video) helps him.

Believe me, the liberal side of the blogosphere is annoyed that the Killian memos are sucking up so much of the oxygen this close to the election. That's probably why they're not writing about it very much.

--Rick Taylor

The following is a copy of the letter I have sent to the general manager of our local CBS affiliate:

Mr. Dave Phillips
General Manager, KUTV
Salt Lake City, UT

17 Sep 04
Sir:

I have been looking over the news from the last week about Dan Rather’s “scoop” on 60 Minutes II last week. If I read the news from ABC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, and a half-dozen web sites and blogs correctly, the following things are true:

· CBS News obtained a number of documents from a source it will not disclose.
· CBS News asked a number of more-or-less qualified individuals to authenticate the documents.
· Every one of those who were said by CBS News to have authenticated the documents has said that CBS News was told in advance that the documents were questionable, or has said since that the documents are questionable, or both.
· Relatives of the supposed author of the documents have said they were false, colleagues of the supposed author have said they are false, superiors of the supposed author have said they are false, and the person who did all the typing for the supposed author has said they are false.
· The documents have been said by experts on typography, typewriters, word processing software, military terminology, and the document preparation practices of the Texas Air National Guard at the time in question, to be false, and that the documents could not and would not have been prepared at the time and place they are claimed to have been.
· CBS News in general, and Dan Rather in particular, maintain that the story which was broadcast on September 8th, based on these documents, was true.

May I suggest that it might be better for KUTV if you suggested to CBS that they dump Dan Rather and those at CBS News who are supporting him? An alternative would be for KUTV to hook up with a more believable news source.

I know you are in the business of selling eyeballs. How many have you lost, and how many will you lose, because no one wants to watch “news” that no one can trust?

So let me get this straight: CBS news does a story about George Bush being a coward and a deserter and you want to talk about the wrapper the story came in? Please answer this rhetorical question for me; "Are all southerners stupid?"

An attempt is being made to obfuscate the point of the story because a man in Texas supplied CBS News with fraudulent documents confirming what everyone since the election defeat of Ann Richards knows very plainly: George Bush was a drunken, wiseass son of an ersatz Texas goon, and young George couldn't find his pudley at the Mustang Ranch for heaven's sake. The fact that you gutless cowards keep trying to look past the main course to study the cheese tray says more about you than it does about Dan Rather.

Wake up, take a pill, and stop being tools for middle-aged, fat assed, white, republicant wussies. Once Bonzo is back in Waco we're gonna finish what General Sherman started and burn your slimy southern asses to a uniform gray powder on top of your barren red clay wasteland.

So you think you're the savages at the gate, huh? Better lock your doors boys, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

The Viking