Wow! It took them 240 pages to say...

[Yonivore]

...we screwed up because of our partisan agenda and due to our hatred of George W. Bush.

CBS is a pack of liars report (http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf)

[Hook Dem]

CBS Memogate is causing heads to roll. Mary Mapes is the most notable. Dan was already told to retire or his name would be on there too. Good ridance!!!!

[Bandit2981]

we screwed up because of our partisan agenda and due to our hatred of George W. Bush.
yeah, even though the panel found there were no political motivations for running the segment :lol

However, the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its content. Given that the Panel does not believe that political motivations drove the September 8 Segment, questions likely will be raised as to why these massive breakdowns occurred on this story at an organization like CBS News with its heritage and stated commitment to the highest standards of journalism.

The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias.

It should be noted that 60 Minutes Wednesday was hardly alone in pursuing the story. Other mainstream media, including USA TODAY, The New York Times and The Associated Press, were pursuing the same story in what was clearly a competitive race to be first.

USA TODAY on September 9 published a similar story relying on the same Killian documents, but has not been as criticized for its story as CBS News has been for the September 8 Segment.
and finally...

The Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries.

[JoeChalupa]

The relief is that this shows the media is still capable of doing the right thing when necessary. Having their feet held to the fire probably helped a bit, too.

[Yonivore]

The relief is that this shows the media is still capable of doing the right thing when necessary. Having their feet held to the fire probably helped a bit, too.
The right thing? Is Dan Blather still on the air?

[Hook Dem]

The relief is that this shows the media is still capable of doing the right thing when necessary. Having their feet held to the fire probably helped a bit, too.
They are capable of doing the right things only when their wallets are held to the fire Joe! Nothing honorable about that! CBS is feeling the heat through lost revenues. Don't kid yourself. The public, when riled, is a powerful force!

[JoeChalupa]

Well it works for me. O'Reilly is still on the air and he was busted so many times so what where is the justice in that?

And besides, isn't the government making up news itself by paying reporters?

[Spurminator]

O'Reilly's been busted? He's an opinion journalist, not a reporter. What could he have been busted on?

[Bandit2981]

O'Reilly's been busted? He's an opinion journalist, not a reporter. What could he have been busted on?
:lol sigh. another misinformed. well, here are 10 things, just to satisfy your curiosity: link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230006)

1. O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)

2. O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)

3. O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)

4. O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)

5. O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)

6. O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)

7. O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)

8. O'Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention ... as Kennedy spoke behind him. O'Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up." In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)

9. O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)

10. O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)

[JoeChalupa]

That's what I'm talkin' about, right there!!

[Spurminator]

sigh. another misinformed.

Um, no. I just know the difference between a reporter and an opinion journalist. You can make a list like that for any pundit.

Dan Rather REPORTED a story using unreliable sources. Bill O'Reilly gives his slant on stories that are reported by others, and his opinions are often backed by bogus claims or misinformation. But in the end, he's paid for his opinions. Rather is paid for reporting the news.

[Bandit2981]

Um, no. I just know the difference between a reporter and an opinion journalist. You can make a list like that for any pundit.
maybe you should read the questions you posted...all i did was answer them since you were so unaware O'Reilly had been busted...its off topic anyways

[Hook Dem]

Spurminator is correct! Know the difference. Al Franken fits into the same category.

[Bandit2981]

hello? the difference wasnt in question. read spurminators QUESTIONS

[Spurminator]

The context of the thread is false reporting, which is what I was asking. Yes, this website appears to have "busted" B.O. on misleading and inaccurate statements. But because he's an Opinion-ist, it's not as important, and that's why nobody cares.

Plus, it's Bill Fucking O'Reilly, so who cares anyway?

[Bandit2981]

lol all i did was answer your questions about o'reilly...but it is off topic, so...back to CBS

[Hook Dem]

"Plus, it's Bill Fucking O'Reilly, so who cares anyway?".........................There ya go Buckwheat! :lol

[Spurminator]

You clearly didn't understand the questions you were trying to answer. All you did was bolster what I already said: Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter.

[Yonivore]

So, again I ask, why the fuck does Dan Rather still have a job?

[Spurminator]

Seniority.

[Hook Dem]

So, again I ask, why the fuck does Dan Rather still have a job?
Bill taught him how to "hang on". :lol

[Hook Dem]

Don't worry! Dan's still on the job http://tinypic.com/17xnqw

[SpursWoman]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=128971#post128971

[dcole50]

"so ... now the news is fixed."

[scott]

So, again I ask, why the fuck does Dan Rather still have a job?

As far as I know, modern televisions are still equipped with at least two knobs (buttons if you will).

One of them changes the channel, and the other one turns it off.

Why does anyone care if Dan Rather still has a job?

[Nbadan]

You clearly didn't understand the questions you were trying to answer. All you did was bolster what I already said: Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter.

We know that, but about 60% of the country that can't differentiate the difference between News opinion and factual reporting don't, and this is what makes propagandists like O"Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh so dangerous. They lie at will to support any argument and then hide behind thin veil of it just 'being my opinion'. Yeah right.

[Nbadan]

So, again I ask, why the fuck does Dan Rather still have a job?

Hey nitwit, Dan Rather followed all of CBS's provisions before airing these vetted documents. If these procedures by CBS were flawed, it wasn't Dan Rathers fault, but higher-ups at CBS who were supposed to be looking after the integrity of the news. If W can claim that he has political capital after stealing another election, then Dan Rather should have integrity capital for all the stories he got right through the years.

[SpursWoman]

We know that, but about 60% of the country that can't differentiate the difference between News opinion and factual reporting don't, and this is what makes propagandists like O"Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh so dangerous. They lie at will to support any argument and then hide behind thin veil of it just 'being my opinion'. Yeah right.



*cough*andMichaelMoore*cough*


:lol

[Hook Dem]

Again, if it had been the other way around, Dan and Bandit would be calling for Rather's head on a platter and you know I'm right. This forum is nothing more than a platform to launch one's own political agenda. Agreed???????

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Um, no. I just know the difference between a reporter and an opinion journalist. You can make a list like that for any pundit.

Dan Rather REPORTED a story using unreliable sources. Bill O'Reilly gives his slant on stories that are reported by others, and his opinions are often backed by bogus claims or misinformation. But in the end, he's paid for his opinions. Rather is paid for reporting the news.

So then why do all you conservatives post crap from Ann Coulter? Is that why she can get away with all the lies she spews? What about all the conservative pundits over at FoxNews?

Yonivore is in love with Ann Coulter and she doesn't even have any credentials other than being a hateful bitch.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

*cough*andMichaelMoore*cough*


:lol

Idiot..since when is Michael Moore a reporter? Get real.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

And speaking of lies...

Bush:

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Bush:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Bush:

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Bush:

"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Bush:

"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming."

Bush:

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction."

Bush:

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Bush:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

Bush:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Bush:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

Bush:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured."

Bush:

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies."

Bush:

"Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."



Note: The aformentioned quotes are from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.


Indeed. Now that CBS has shown some balls and gotten rid of some liars, or possibly misinformed people (as they should have) let's see if FOX News and our government have the balls to do so as well.

[SpursWoman]

Idiot..since when is Michael Moore a reporter? Get real.


Oh, bite me. Since when is Bill O'Reilly a reporter, Oh Brilliant One? Like Moore is not responsible for influencing any opinions of the less-than-astute population such as yourself. I'm sure a lot more people saw that hack-job than ever tune into news-OPINION programming.

So I guess a prerequisite of becoming an extreme liberal like yourself is to have the sense of humor sucked right out of you?

[Useruser666]

Idiot..since when is Michael Moore a reporter? Get real.

Wasn't F9/11 a documentary?

What about Bowling for Columbine?

[ClintSquint]

http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsdr.jpg
"Why don't you all bite me!"

[SpursWoman]

http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsdr.jpg
"Why don't you all bite me!"


:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

It's rather simple why Dan Rather has a job, he didn't do anything wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

heh, I made a pun without realizing it.

[Hook Dem]

:lmao

It's rather simple why Dan Rather has a job, he didn't do anything wrong.
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Yonivore]

And speaking of lies...

Bush:

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
How is that a lie? Isn't it exactly what the President did?

Bush:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
Exactly when did Hussein account for the chemicals and/or prove their destruction?

Bush:

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
Okay, two-fold...since when is relying on intelligence lying and, again, exactly when did Hussein account for the munitions or show he'd destroyed them?

Bush:

"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
At least one of the defectors -- a son-in-law to Saddam Hussein -- returned and tried to make amends with the Iraqi dictator. He was quickly dispatched with a bullet to the head.

And, when did Saddam Hussein provide proof he'd destroyed his weapons?

Bush:

"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming."
The dictator of Iraq provided no PROOF, as was required in many of 17 pending UNSC resolutions, that he was disarming. The logical conclusion of his defiance is that he was no disarming.

Bush:

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction."
David Kay is in agreement with this statement in his final report regarding Saddam's WMD programs...

Bush:

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."
That's a subjective statement about what Saddam Hussein could do and, therefore, unable to be a lie. Do you disagree he had those ambitions?

Bush:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
Again, a conclusion also reached by David Kay in his report to Congress.

Bush:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."
Okay, where's the lie? President Bush is making a statement with which many (me included) agree...just because you don't doesn't make it a lie.

Bush:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
Again, where's the lie?

Bush:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured."
Never heard of the Kurds, I guess...

Bush:

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies."
That's a statment of intent...not a lie. And, the ceasefire commenced in 1991, 12 years prior to that statement. So, again, I don't see the lie.

Bush:

"Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."
And he did.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, that's a rather long post.

[Spurminator]

Marzetti doesn't appear to understand what's being argued.

Read again or back away.

[SpursWoman]

Wasn't F9/11 a documentary?

What about Bowling for Columbine?


You'd probably have to define what a documentary is and maybe he'll make the connection. :)