Even more so when you consider the claim that they had been working on this story for 5 years.
Being a confidential source is technically a contract. I reveal this information to you, you keep my iden y a secret. They can't reveal that source in order to keep faith with that system.
Novak on the other hand allegedly broke the law when he revealed the information his source gave to him. The confidentiality source protection has only one widely held exception to its rule. It can not be a shield law to protect criminal activity.
Well apparently said confidential source provided Rather with fake docs so they didnt keep up their end of the deal.
Yeah that happens from time to time. The system (and personally I don't like it) is really geared to fail in that way. But its pretty ancient in terms of how long those rules have been around in the US.
If the contract is verbal, it is implied that the source is providing you with factual information and maintaining confidentiality is contingent up on that. If the contract is written, no news organization worth it's salt wouldn't have that in the contract."Being a confidential source is technically a contract. I reveal this information to you, you keep my iden y a secret. They can't reveal that source in order to keep faith with that system."
"...allegedly...""Novak on the other hand allegedly broke the law when he revealed the information his source gave to him. The confidentiality source protection has only one widely held exception to its rule. It can not be a shield law to protect criminal activity."
Contract intact.
The contract is not verbal. Each company tends to have its own written policy on how it deals with confidential sources. Back in the days when news organizations actually tried to scoop each other with legitimate stories, sources would only go to those who could/would protect them.
Then I would guarantee you there is language that calls off all bets if the source provides false information."The contract is not verbal. Each company tends to have its own written policy on how it deals with confidential sources. Back in the days when news organisations actually tried to scoop eachother with legitimate stories, sources would only go to those who could/would protect them."
If there isn't, CBS has stupid lawyers...maybe you should consider applying there, when you graduate, counselor.
This is tradition Yonivore. America sticks to this kind of heritage like fish in water. The problem here is with the free press amendment bestowing a privilege without responsibility. If you are really that worried about it call your congress people to bring back the fairness doctrine, something that might have prevented this fiasco.
The contract tends to get that sacredity (new word) from the freedom of the press amendment, which really should have been written to bestow some responsibility to go along with such a privilege. Such as being accurate, fair, and to serve the people. Because hey they can use the freedom of speech amendment to do everything else.
So, let me see if I have this straight, DeSPURate; CBS News is going to toss its journalistic credibility into the cesspool, allow public opinion to draw the conclusion that, somehow, the DNC/Kerry are involved in this fiasco, and continue to maintain the accuracy of already discredited information in adherance to some "traditional" principle that won't allow them to reveal a lying source?
Alrighty.
If Rather and CBS cannot reveal who duped them they would seem able at least to indicate that they were duped and leave it up to other outlets to ferret out who the source was (Newsweek has already taken their shot).
By the way, DeSPURate, you are aware that forging government do ents -- even for political reasons -- is a federal crime, right?
So, under the premise of your "alleged crime" scenario in the Novak kerfuffle, shouldn't Dan reveal his source?
I don't agree with your assesment of what that means. i'm just saying the source will be kept confidential until the source comes forward.
You are also acting on the presumption that the do ents are not accurate representations of what really happened. So far they are simply not what they were purported to be. CBS will assess if its a salvagable story, if 60 minutes is something that is worth saving. But bottom line the company is making a profit off of it whether it was a mistake or not.
Fairness doctrine history
If they are forged, if doesn't matter if the content is real or not. Someone attached an officer of the US Military's signature to a memo that was not issued by him.
As long as CBS continues to argue that the do ents are genuine they will continue to lose credibility and other media outlets will have no problem in continuing to investigate them.
Oh boy, now CBS is using the 'if fake, still accurate' defense. And of course they are painting the critics as simply partisan Republicans.
Man they are hoping this will blow over.
'if fake, still accurate'- that means the implications of them are still real. What did you expect. They should figure out where they came from at this point, but the story doesn't disappear if they are still accurate representations of what happened. Why should the story just stop?
Did I say it had to stop? No. What they are doing is trying like to cover up the one issue (the fake docs) with the other (Bush's guard service).
Not hard to see what they are doing.
I mean it should not be the case that a scandal should ever out weigh the truth. If we did that every politician would be in jail.
They ed up in how they portrayed the story. I don't know what to say about that, it was sheer stupidity to not have done it in a way that would have protected thier asses and gotten the rest of the press on their side. IE- say they found these do ents. They can't verify them for sure. But preliminary meetings with their experts have shown some signs of them being authentic.
Thats what happens though when the message isn't directed by politics though. They were in it for the scandal and the sensationalism. And it didn't help the democrats any.
The whole thing's a scandal.
Still, is not the "if fake, still accurate" standard the least bit troubling? What if a news channel ran a report with a memo written in MS Word and dated 1972 which purported to confirm that Kerry lied about some of his war exploits?
Then what if a network news anchor and investigative journalist continued to insist that even if the docs are fake, it is an accurate claim based on 'other evidence'?
Every sane person who reads this forum knows what the answer would be. If you want to defend CBS' effort to cover up a fraud then that's your prerogative.
That was a damn good piece of spin I laid out there though right?
Yeah its troubling. Like I said I will watch the story unfold. I want to see more evidence that they are fake but real, but you have to admit the secratary admitting to them being based upon real ones was pretty damning.
She said "some" of the information was correct.
lets do the actual quotes:
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.
Didn't I read somewhere that she's an anti-Bush?
So is half the country.
I really hate that too. It pisses me off. Its not an argument to say someone is antibush so they are obviously lying. The Swiftboats are anti kerry...do you believe them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote