Why I care about the Cheney hunting accident

[portisizzle]

Oh, I'll agree that, IMO, the reporters outrage was likely about as genuine as Cheney's belief that the media is picking on him.

To be blunt, I do not think Cheney gave a **** what the media was doing. He shot someone.

[nelms]

"The behavior of the reporters at the White House with Scott McClellan" was that a reporter asked a question, and Scott accused the reporter of grandstanding (with the cameras off). And the reporter got offended at being insulted because he asked a quesion.

You are talking about ONE incident with David Gregory of NBC News. I believe both McClellan and Gregory were unprofessional on that exchange. What I was talking about was the absolute feeding frenzy of almost EVERY one of the reporters at the White House press conference on Monday.

[BlueTalon]

I think one indication of a liberal tilt in the media is just how the press corps behaves. I don't remember ever seeing them get as bent out of shape with the Clinton administration as they have with the Bush administration, even though the Clinton administration was not known for it's openness, either. (Press-accessibility and press-friendliness, yes, but not openness.) For example, they got very light treatment by the press concerning Waco, Vince Foster, about 1000 FBI files, billing records, etc.

My own personal theory is that they mostly felt sympathy for a Democrat President who was being attacked and mauled by vicious conservatives and for this reason went soft on him, but the "why" doesn't matter. They were never as belligerent with Clinton's administration as they are with Bush's.

[Larry]

For example, they got very light treatment by the press concerning Waco, Vince Foster, about 1000 FBI files, billing records, etc.

I've never heard of any of those stories, what are you talking about? [/sarcasm]

They were never as belligerent with Clinton's administration as they are with Bush's.

Could the fact that the Clinton's never once accused their entire profession of being forgers, liars, communists and terrorists have perhaps contributed to a difference in ambiance?

[portisizzle]

Could the fact that the Clinton's never once accused their entire profession of being forgers, liars, communists and terrorists have perhaps contributed to a difference in ambiance?

Dan Rather ring a bell?

[twenty-eight]

Hey, he's a liberal. Remember - we point out problems, we don't fix them.

:laugh::laugh: i'd rock that bumper sticker!

[Larry]

I think a more accurate one would be a variation of a satire "motivational poster" I've seen:

Consulting

If you're not part of the solution,

there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem

[Larry]

Dan Rather ring a bell?

An excellant example.

Dan Rather ran a news story, in which a source told him he had new information on a subject that the White House had been dodging for 4 years. The source gave him some documents, which Dan showed as part of the story. Dan (or more likely, one of his assistants) gave the documents to two current sources within the administraton. One refused comment, the other told them that part of their story was wrong (and they chose to edit out that part), but didn't dispute the other parts.

About an hour later, right-wing web sites had full, detailed typographical analysis showing that the documents were forgeries. (Raising the interesting theory, to me, that either one of the people they showed the documents to for verification decided to tell his boss that 60 Minutes was about to do a story with forged documents, and they (60 Minutes) don't know it, or somebody gave 60 Minutes with the intention of "discovering" the forgery after they ran with it. But that's another matter.)

But despite the evidence that at least somebody "on the Right" knew the documents were forgeries before 60 Minutes ran the story, Dan got fired, anyway. (A decision I can agree with. His job is to report the facts. After umpty-ump years in his profession, he should be used to the possibility that people with an agenda may well be lieing to him, and he should be prepared. And even though he did get a second source, he was wrong. (And "wrong" sticks in the minds of his audience a lot longer than "I had a second source" does.))

There is no evidence whatsoever that what Dan Rather did was anything more than falling for a fake story. (Perhaps, a fake story that he wanted to hear, but a fake nonetheless.)

To be even more to the point, there is more evidence that Cheney was drunk (Cheney admits to one beer earlier), than there is that Dan forged those documents. (Or even that he knew they were fakes and went ahead, anyway.)

Dan Rather got fired for a mistake that the public found out about. Dick Cheney will suffer no consequences whatsoever.

And yet, to "the Right", the mere fact that the media isn't covering the story up is proof of a vast, left-wing conspiracy.

And Dan Rather is a shining example that all reporters are forgers.

[nelms]

An excellant example.

Dan Rather ran a news story, in which a source told him he had new information on a subject that the White House had been dodging for 4 years. The source gave him some documents, which Dan showed as part of the story. Dan (or more likely, one of his assistants) gave the documents to two current sources within the administraton. One refused comment, the other told them that part of their story was wrong (and they chose to edit out that part), but didn't dispute the other parts.

About an hour later, right-wing web sites had full, detailed typographical analysis showing that the documents were forgeries. (Raising the interesting theory, to me, that either one of the people they showed the documents to for verification decided to tell his boss that 60 Minutes was about to do a story with forged documents, and they (60 Minutes) don't know it, or somebody gave 60 Minutes with the intention of "discovering" the forgery after they ran with it. But that's another matter.)

But despite the evidence that at least somebody "on the Right" knew the documents were forgeries before 60 Minutes ran the story, Dan got fired, anyway. (A decision I can agree with. His job is to report the facts. After umpty-ump years in his profession, he should be used to the possibility that people with an agenda may well be lieing to him, and he should be prepared. And even though he did get a second source, he was wrong. (And "wrong" sticks in the minds of his audience a lot longer than "I had a second source" does.))

There is no evidence whatsoever that what Dan Rather did was anything more than falling for a fake story. (Perhaps, a fake story that he wanted to hear, but a fake nonetheless.)

To be even more to the point, there is more evidence that Cheney was drunk (Cheney admits to one beer earlier), than there is that Dan forged those documents. (Or even that he knew they were fakes and went ahead, anyway.)

Dan Rather got fired for a mistake that the public found out about. Dick Cheney will suffer no consequences whatsoever.

And yet, to "the Right", the mere fact that the media isn't covering the story up is proof of a vast, left-wing conspiracy.

And Dan Rather is a shining example that all reporters are forgers.

First of all, I don't think anyone on the right suggested that Rather personally forged those documents. He was accused of being unprofessional because he did not check the validity of those documents, which was the main thrust of his story. By the way, Rather was not fired by CBS, as you stated. At least CBS and Rather denied his "retiring" had anything to do with the forged documents.

And one last thing, this statement by you is just totally ridiculous: "there is more evidence that Cheney was drunk (Cheney admits to one beer earlier)...". I had ONE beer today at lunch. ONE. And I drove home after drinking that ONE beer. And I was NOT drunk after drinking that ONE beer. You see, grown ups can actually drink a beer (or even two), without intending to get drunk.

[BlueTalon]

Larry, you're off your game. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, ever EVER claimed that Dan Rather forged the documents he used in his story. Somebody else forged them, the question is "who?", a question for which the major media didn't seem too interested in getting an answer. Dan, however, not only was refusing to discern whether the documents were valid, he went with the story at a very key time in the election. (Had it not been for alert and knowledgeable people and the internet, Rather could very well have thrown the election -- and 20 years earlier, he would have.) And it wasn't just Dan -- at a minimum, many others at CBS were involved: interviewing these people but not those people, asking these document experts but being careful about which parts of their analysis to report, etc. And even when it became embarassingly clear to everyone else in the country that the documents were not legit, he continued to insist that that they might be.

Your elaboration on Dan Rather exquisitely demonstrates both the leftward tilt in the media, and the benefit of having multiple sources of information.

[Larry]

First of all, I don't think anyone on the right suggested that Rather personally forged those documents. He was accused of being unprofessional because he did not check the validity of those documents, which was the main thrust of his story. By the way, Rather was not fired by CBS, as you stated. At least CBS and Rather denied his "retiring" had anything to do with the forged documents.

And one last thing, this statement by you is just totally ridiculous: "there is more evidence that Cheney was drunk (Cheney admits to one beer earlier)...". I had ONE beer today at lunch. ONE. And I drove home after drinking that ONE beer. And I was NOT drunk after drinking that ONE beer. You see, grown ups can actually drink a beer (or even two), without intending to get drunk.

1) Re-read my post. I didn't say Cheney was drunk. I said there was more evidence than against Rather. ("very little" is greater than "zero").

2) You're right, of course. The mere fact that Rather "retired" with no warning whatsoever two weeks after screwing up on national TV is merely a coincidence.

3) "First of all, I don't think anyone on the right suggested that Rather personally forged those documents. " You're right. I pointed out that "the Right" has a standard policy of attacking the entire profession of journalism as being "forgers, liars, communists and terrorists", and the response is "Dan Rather". Obviously no one is trying to claim that Dan Rather was an example of proof of journalistic forgery.

portisizzle was obviously referring to Dan Rather as an example of a terrorist.

[Larry]

Larry, you're off your game. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, ever EVER claimed that Dan Rather forged the documents he used in his story. Somebody else forged them, the question is "who?", a question for which the major media didn't seem too interested in getting an answer. Dan, however, not only was refusing to discern whether the documents were valid, he went with the story at a very key time in the election. (Had it not been for alert and knowledgeable people and the internet, Rather could very well have thrown the election -- and 20 years earlier, he would have.) And it wasn't just Dan -- at a minimum, many others at CBS were involved: interviewing these people but not those people, asking these document experts but being careful about which parts of their analysis to report, etc. And even when it became embarassingly clear to everyone else in the country that the documents were not legit, he continued to insist that that they might be.

Your elaboration on Dan Rather exquisitely demonstrates both the leftward tilt in the media, and the benefit of having multiple sources of information.

And I repeat: The only evidence against Dan Rather is that he fell for a fake.

(And he paid for it. A concept that seems foreign to "the Right".)

But he's used as an example to claim that the White House is justified in claiming that all reporters are lieing forgers with an agenda.

-----

(And yes, you're right. When the fake came out, CBS went into CYA mode.)

[nelms]

1) Re-read my post. I didn't say Cheney was drunk. I said there was more evidence than against Rather. ("very little" is greater than "zero").

No one is arguing that Rather personally forged those documents. So your point is moot.

2) You're right, of course. The mere fact that Rather "retired" with no warning whatsoever two weeks after screwing up on national TV is merely a coincidence.

Wow, you really are slipping. Rather aired his story on 60 minutes on Sept 8, 2004. He did not retire until March 9, 2005, a good 6 months after his story aired.

[Larry]

No one is arguing that Rather personally forged those documents. So your point is moot.

You're right. portisizzle put his name in that post for no reason whatsoever.

I claim that the White House has a habit of accusing reporters of being forgers, and the response is "Dan Rather". Nope. Nobody's accusing him. his post did not once contain the exact words "I personally accuse Dan Rather of personally . . . " Nobody accusing anybody here.

OTOH, I claim that there is more evidence against Chaney (and I cite it. An intentionally trivial pieve of evidence). And I'm accusing.

Nope. No politically-motivated double standard here.

[nelms]

I claim that the White House has a habit of accusing reporters of being forgers, and the response is "Dan Rather".

No, you said more than that. You said this:

"... forgers, liars, communists and terrorists have perhaps contributed to a difference in ambiance?"

So which one was Portisizzle referencing when he said Dan Rather? Forgers? Liars? Communists? Terrorists? You made the assumption he was accusing Rather of being a forger and completely ran with that.

[BlueTalon]

And I repeat: The only evidence against Dan Rather is that he fell for a fake.

(And he paid for it. A concept that seems foreign to "the Right".)

But he's used as an example to claim that the White House is justified in claiming that all reporters are lieing forgers with an agenda.

-----

(And yes, you're right. When the fake came out, CBS went into CYA mode.)

OK, I missed the link or report where the White House accused all reporters of being lieing forgers with agendas. You are apparently refering to something specific, so I will patiently withhold judgment until you have the opportunity to clarify and give a link.

But your remark about paying for mistakes being foreign to the Right is something I must take issue with. Newt got a $4 million advance on a book, but gave it back because of complaints about ethics. Hillary got an $8 million advance on a book, but nary a peep was heard from the same ethics hawks because even though she'd been elected, she was still a few days away from becoming a Senator and so technically wasn't under any congressional ethics rules. Before Hastert became Speaker, he was preceded by a couple of candidates who withdrew (and I think resigned) because investigations turned up marital infidelity. Yet the most famous case of marital infidelity in American political history went unpaid-for. (He did get beat up about lying under oath about it, but the infidelity itself got a pass.) Chuck Colson went to prison for having one FBI file in his possession unauthorized, but around 1000 lying around in the Clinton White House produced no convictions whatsoever.

This list could go on for a long time, but you get the idea.

[DeanCollins]

Admit it, Cheney was hammered when he pulled the trigger :laugh:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Admit it, Cheney was hammered when he pulled the trigger :laugh:

Is that your wet dream come true?

[DeanCollins]

Is that your wet dream come true?

"True" is probably the operative word. Cheney was just tired of dumb@$$ (there should be a W in dumb@$$) getting all of the attention.

[unsonny]

funny song.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hipp/cheneys-victim-sings_b_15948.html