 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gleanerl
Ensign
Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 57
Location: western nebraska
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:34 pm Post subject: another take on cbs/rather... |
 |
|
i am a newbie on here and am a bit intimidated by posting, yet i think this hits the cbs/rather stance on the head.
i hope this hasn't been posted already.
please forgive me if it has been .....
this puts the 'mindset' of cbs/rather in a more logical light to me.
i knew it was happening, but couldn't articulate it.
this column articulates it. 
| Quote: | September 13, 2004, 10:46 a.m.
From Biased to Partisan
The mainstream media moves left.
Last Friday Richard Starr made a prediction about the National Guard memos: CBS would almost certainly admit that they were forgeries. That sure seemed right to me at the time. But instead, CBS said it was standing by its story and, despite reports, would not conduct an internal investigation. On hearing this news, Jim Geraghty of NRO's Kerry Spot spoke for me when he sputtered, "I am stunned." The stunning truth, as Mark Steyn put it was that "Big Media are trashing their reputations in service to a man who can never win." I thought I agreed with that too. But now I'm not so sure.
Why were we so wrong? Why did Dan Rather and CBS News, against all expectations, impeach their own credibility to defend the authenticity of memos that are almost certainly forgeries? The obvious answer is that they did it to save the faltering Kerry campaign from a final and decisive blow. If CBS were to admit that the documents were forgeries, it would have no grounds for protecting its sources. In fact, CBS would have a positive obligation to do everything in its power to expose the malefactors behind the forgeries. If the trail led back to the Kerry campaign, president Bush's reelection would be assured. Dan Rather has been at pains to derogate those who are interested in where the documents came from. This sounds suspiciously like Rather is concerned about what a revelation of his sources might mean. Certainly, if Rather personally received the forgeries from a Kerry operative, it would be a disaster for Rather. That alone might seem to be sufficient to explain CBS's refusal to admit its error. (It now appears that CBS News may well have received the documents from a partisan and highly questionable source.)
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
And even if the trail leading back to the forgers does not pass through the Kerry camp, an admission by CBS that the documents are bogus would be a huge embarrassment for the senator's campaign, which has so aggressively seized upon the story to attack the president. It would also be a fiasco for Dan Rather and CBS, whose credulity on a story harmful to the president would be exposed, and pointedly contrasted to their treatment of the Swift-boat veterans.
But surely it would have been better for Rather and CBS to cut their losses and admit their error. Yes, they would have taken a hit, but they would also have won kudos for honesty and professionalism. Americans are forgiving of those who admit error. By standing behind a story that is so obviously flawed, Rather and CBS News are setting themselves up to become laughing stocks. That is why the reasonable assumption I — and many other folks — made was that CBS would attempt to salvage its reputation by repudiating the memos. And that is why many now assume Dan Rather and CBS News have sacrificed their reputations in order to protect the Kerry campaign.
But can devotion to John Kerry really explain so flagrant a violation of CBS's apparent best interests? There must be another reason the network surprised us all. It is doubtful it would consciously take a course that would place its audience share and financial position at significant risk. If Dan Rather himself had taken forged documents from a Kerry campaign operative, that might explain why he personally was willing to stand by a shaky story. But it would not account for the willingness of CBS to back him up. No doubt, Rather and the members of the news division at CBS strongly favor John Kerry's bid for the presidency. But I do not believe they would have allowed themselves to be put in this position solely to save Kerry. Yes, the determination to rescue John Kerry is behind the decision to defend the documents. But it is not so much Dan Rather's politics at work here as it is the politics of the CBS audience.
THE MAINSTREAM MOVES LEFT
Something important seems to be happening to the media — something those of us who complain about liberal media bias may have missed up to now. Although there is a major and ever growing alternative media composed of talk radio, opinion journals, Internet news sites, blogs, and Fox News, the "mainstream media" still dominates. In terms of sheer numbers, the network newscasts still out-pull cable news channels by considerable margins. And Internet sites and blogs still attract a relatively small (if growing and disproportionately influential) audience. Because of its prestige — and because it's just plain bigger — the mainstream media is, well, "mainstream," while the rest are just "alternative."
Although all of this is still true, we may well be seeing the initial signs of a profound realignment of the media along more strictly and openly partisan lines. The mainstream media as a whole may be larger than the alternative outlets, but the mainstream audience itself is segmented. Looking at the CBS News audience alone, we are probably talking about the most self-consciously liberal part of the network audience pie. True, nowadays all the network newscasts are liberal. But CBS has had that reputation longer than the rest. Gradually, with the exit of moderates and conservatives to other networks and the alternative media, CBS's audience is probably now composed largely of liberal Democrats. In the middle of the most divisive presidential election in years, we have to assume that the CBS audience itself is far more interested in helping John Kerry than in getting to the bottom of the forgery issue. So as the country increasingly divides into two media camps, the "mainstream media" is becoming more openly partisan. And it's the audience that's driving this — not only, or even primarily, the journalists, liberal though journalists may be.
No matter how much the media scene has changed, many of us carry an image in our minds of the old CBS News. In the days when the country had only three network newscasts to watch, CBS was the most prestigious of all. Back then, CBS News would certainly have repudiated the forgeries (in the unlikely event that they would have fallen for them in the first place). Had they not repudiated the documents, CBS News would have risked the loss, along with its reputation for fairness, of half or more of its audience. But nowadays, toughing it out on behalf of John Kerry is only likely to reinforce audience loyalty among CBS's partisan viewers. The CBS audience might find its enthusiasm for Dan Rather dampened considerably if an admission from Rather ended up bringing down their candidate.
We conservatives can talk all we want about CBS putting its credibility at risk. But the truth is, we ceased to take the word of Dan Rather or CBS a long time ago. What's more, CBS knows this. And that is why they're sticking with their story. In other words, the exit of increasing numbers of conservatives and moderates from the mainstream-media audience is pushing mainstream outlets to the left.
I, for one, am a disappointed old-time loyalist of CBS News and the New York Times. Somewhere deep in my trusting heart, I want to believe that some journalistically responsible "grown up" at the old media bastions is going to read all these revelations of bias and set things right. In my dreams, chastened by their betrayal of journalistic standards, mainstream outlets would start hiring young reporters who cut their teeth at conservative, and not just liberal, publications, and will thus gradually recreate the balanced, fair-minded, and trustworthy news institutions of old.
UNOFFICIAL SPOKESMAN
But now I see why this can't happen. The divisions in the country are too strong. What's more, the cycle of division is self-reinforcing. First came the of the movements of the 60s. Then the media was captured by the Left. Then the conservatives started to exit, building up alternative outlets as they went. As the fundamental cultural and political issues dividing the country sharpened, more and more people started flooding to the alternative media. This self-selection process began to turn the mainstream audience into a self-consciously liberal audience. So even as complaints about liberal media bias escalated, the mainstream media was bound to become more liberal, not less liberal — because that's what was happening to its audience. What all this means is that, given its audience, CBS News is no longer concerned about preserving it reputation for fairnessliberalism.
We are still in transition. Mainstream (i.e., liberal) outlets are still bigger. That means they still get more attention from voters in the middle. The mainstream media cannot entirely ignore accusations of bias, and still needs to maintain a veneer of neutrality and professionalism. Up to now, the media's liberalism was most unambiguously evident on social issues. Political coverage was the one place where real efforts at balance were made. But in this election, we have seen a major shift toward bias even in political coverage. The mainstream media are now working for the Democratic party with all the enthusiasm of Wendy's "unofficial spokesman." In reality, of course, Wendy's unofficial spokesman is their most official and important representative. The mainstream media's relationship to the Democratic party is now about the same.
Does all of this mean that stories about media bias are futile, or even counterproductive? Not really. It simply means that it's too late for the mainstream media to reform itself. The exit of doubters is now so large that the mainstream outlets are trapped by the remaining and largely liberal audience into ever more obvious leftist partisanship. Put that together with the actual left-leaning political views of reporters, and there will obviously be no change.
The purpose of media-bias stories is now different than it once was. The goal is no longer to reform the mainstream media, but to expose it for the partisan political player it is, so as to pull as many doubters as possible into alternative outlets. Is this good for the country? I doubt it. It would be far better to have a fair and trusted mainstream media to present the news, flanked by thoughtful journals of opinion on both sides of the political spectrum. But sadly, that is not where we are. |
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200409131046.asp
_________________
_________________
Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
William Safire (1929 - )
Last edited by gleanerl on Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Absolut
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good post... Whats your source for the story? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gleanerl
Ensign
Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 57
Location: western nebraska
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer2
PO2
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 387
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That was an excellent, if rather wordy essay.
The simple explanation of both the MSM and Democratic party's shift to the left is this:
Each time the leftist bias in either group offended someone who had been a viewer/supporter that person would change channels/Parties/Become an independent. Each time this happened, the viewership/membership declined and those who remained were increasingly harder left. Eventually a shift occurred to where both were so far left that they could not reverse course without offending their Viewership/Base.
This is a classic downward spiral that will lead to their demise. The only remedy is for something new to arise to replace them.
The internet has done this for the media, a new political party will arise to provide a new home for disgruntled former Democrats.
My own suspicion is that after the meltdown of the left we will see the Classic Liberalism of the Libertarian movement move to the forefront.
As long as the debate has been between the hard left Democrats and the Socialism Light of the Republicans, most people had to vote the lesser of two evils. This kind of debate creats a gradual spiral to the left as has occured both here and in Europe..
In the absence of a strong hard left party, the debate will shift to Socialism Light versus Classical Liberalism. The deconstruction of Socialism will begin and the Nation will slowly move back to the ideals of Free Markets, Limited Government, and Individual responsibility.
This process I have described works in both directions and accounts for the collapse of Republicanism and Classical Liberalism after 1929 and the rise of Socialism under FDR. It also accounts for the rebirth of the Republican party under Reagan and the re-emergence of the Classical Liberal mindset.
We are witnessing this sea change in our culture again today.
_________________
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" - Thomas Jefferson
"An armed society is a polite society" - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gleanerl
Ensign
Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 57
Location: western nebraska
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, it was 'wordy'....
yet it surely focused on what is happening and made it all make sense to me.
and since i have started reading this board, it makes me wonder how many other people are like me.... 'knowing, yet can't articulate what they know'.......?
i'm not a player, just an old broad in western nebraska, and still, i see what is going on.
as a grade-schooler in the 60's, i remember the cold war and bomb shelter signs...
that business was drilled into our head, as well as how the communists controled the media, etc.
it boggles my mind that so many seem to have forgotten that.
it boggles my mind that so many seem to just 'go along' nowadays....
what in the world is wrong with them?
are they brainwashed?
do they really believe the liberal take?
we know that they don't live their lives according to the liberal/socialist way of life.
yet they spew it to all that will listen.
call me dense, but i just don't get it.
although, you all, on this board have given me hope.
regular people, intelligent people, articulate people who put into words what i've always thought...
tis a hoot.
(and yes, i am in my pajama's....  )
_________________
_________________
Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
William Safire (1929 - ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimmymac
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 816
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm. Interesting post, Hammer2. I can only hope and pray that you are right wrt a national mind-set shift towards classic liberalism and a renewal of the concept of personal responsibility.
Barring a massive backlash, a charismatic leader, and tidal wave of supernatural revival, however, I do not see such a thing happening. Republicans have to adopt a "socialism light" agenda to even get elected, and they must get elected before they can have any impact on the Courts--the real battleground--and stop the leftists from completely dismantling the Constitution.
I used to be very active in Republican politics, and I still believe they are by far the lesser of the evils. In recent years, however, I have shifted my political activism towards those working to perserve our system of checks and balances (fighting against activist courts like the 9th Circuit)and those working to uphold morality in an increasingly decaying society. (The homicide rate among juveniles has increased 444% since 1960, for example.) I feel that is a better use of my time because pressure is then exerted on the Republican party to not completly abandon the tenets of classic liberalism and Constitutional governance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gleanerl
Ensign
Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 57
Location: western nebraska
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and yet another take......
| Quote: | Dan Rather’s Blunder: The Day Old Media Died?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial by CK Rairden
September 13, 2004
The coverage of the presidential campaign saw an interesting turn during the month of August. The most damaging aspect to either candidate came from a group of veterans called the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” But the old media tried to ignore them and shut them out of the campaign. Enter the new media, a combination of the Internet blogosphere, Matt Drudge, talk radio and Fox News. They crammed the “SwiftVets” down the collective throats of the old media, and as they never attempted to do their jobs, they lost the battle. The old media candidate, John F. Kerry, was so rattled that he hid from all media after August 9th. Kerry apparently was paralyzed with fear, afraid to answer the very pointed questions that emerged from the book, “Unfit for Command,” the number one best-seller written by the SwiftVet leader John O’Neill.
So the old media picked last week to strike back. You could just feel the protest, ‘how dare these bloggers and Matt Drudge join talk radio and Fox News and take over the coverage of this campaign.’ So they trotted out old media dinosaur Dan Rather to put these upstarts in their place. Rather and CBS fired up 60 Minutes II with claims of “incredible documents” ready to show that President George W. Bush got special treatment in 1972 and 1973 in the Texas National Guard
Armed with these memos and a partisan Kerry hack named Ben Barnes, Rather carefully laid out his case. After an interview with Barnes on the program, Rather emerged with “newly uncovered” memos that he believed would damage the president’s chances at re-election. One said that a Guard official was "pushing to sugar coat" Bush's training evaluation. It was cleverly titled “CYA.” So clever--it almost seemed unbelievable. To some folks, it was.
For a few hours, Rather must have been on top of the old media world. It seemed as if this had been handled so clean, and now his old media cohorts would dispatch reporters to demand answers from the president about his Texas National Guard service for the umpteenth time. They would turn this Viet Nam table upside down on the president and hammer him, freeing up their candidate John F. Kerry. But a funny thing happened on the way to the old media lynching of George W. Bush.
The new media stepped in.
They quickly made Dan Rather and old media’s fading credibility the issue. Ben Barnes’ daughter made phone calls early the next day to talk radio stations to politely call her dad a partisan hack and a liar. She was very reluctant to criticize her father but came off as humble and credible while he came off as nothing more than a Kerry operative. Ben Barnes credibility was damaged beyond repair. But it shouldn’t have mattered as Dan Rather still had those “blockbuster memos” that would damage President Bush’s re-election hopes.
According to the LA Times, that began unraveling about 19 minutes after the program ended. Scott Johnson of the blog “Power Line” acted on an e-mail sent to him from a post on a message board that questioned the legitimacy of the memos. Some of the members of the message board apparently began questioning the memos less than 20 minutes after 60 Minutes II had ended. That’s right; the humble beginning of old media’s needed comeuppance came from an anonymous poster on a conservative message board. The claim was simple; it seemed as if the documents were produced on a word processor, not a typewriter from 1972.
At least that’s what a poster said in a thread titled “Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard.
Johnson posted a link on his Power Line blog the next morning under an entry titled the 61st Minute. Matt Drudge quickly linked to it on the Drudge Report and it exploded from there. Charles Johnson of the Little Green Footballs blog put up an example on his blog with this explanation, “here’s my image where the original PDF document from the CBS News site is overlaid on my Microsoft Word document, showing the exact match of line spacing, character spacing, and character forms.”
It was a near perfect match. Now terms like “forgeries,” and “fake documents” were being thrown around.
The next twelve hours were fascinating, the new media was crushing every facet of the 60 Minutes II story and Dan Rather had no clue how to react. His “experts” were abandoning him, his credibility lay in shambles and the best he could muster was “I stand by this story.” It would be sad if it weren’t someone so condescending and as arrogant as Dan Rather. In less than a day, the story had changed from questions about the president’s National Guard service to questions about CBS and Dan Rather’s credibility.
Old media should have seen this coming. Many of them are now far too partisan and worse they are intellectually lazy. They are losing news consumers to a group of people who are very creative, seem to never sleep and run on a 5-minute news cycle.
Bloggers are a unique breed, some use humor, some simple facts, and some a combination to cite opinion and report on stories. Most use the type of critical thinking that has long been lost in the old media. That’s given them millions of consumers and the new media has used that power well and flexed its collective muscle in the last two months. They used their influence to push the SwiftVets story in August and literally stopped the Kerry camp for over a month. And now in September have derailed Dan Rather’s attempt to derail President Bush and have dominated the coverage of the presidential race for the first 13 days in September.
The domination has been so staggering the question has to be asked—was Dan Rather’s blunder the day old media died?
CK Rairden is the National Editor for the Washington Dispatch. |
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/opinion/article_10053.shtml
_________________
_________________
Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
William Safire (1929 - ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer2
PO2
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 387
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To clarify my point, I believe that in human nature there is an inherent resistance to change. When we see a radical re-alignment in a society, it is generally the culmination of a long slow progress in that direction. Eventually a tipping point is reached and that is where the radical re-alignment occurs.
I like to think Lord Acton had something like this in mind when he said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
The consolidation of power at either end of the spectrum generates an opposite reaction, causing the trend to reverse until a new tipping point is reached and a new re-alignment occurs.
If you examine human history, it becomes clear that this long, slow swing of the pendulum governs our affairs.
_________________
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" - Thomas Jefferson
"An armed society is a polite society" - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
