Tag: Dan Rather

Did CBS Deceive Viewers about Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb Controversy?

Rush Limbaugh was complaining this week on his show that on the Friday before the Super Bowl CBS ran a hit piece about him which deceived viewers about the 2003 controversy in which he said that sports reporters overrated Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb because the reporters wanted a black quarterback to succeed.

Looking at the transcript of both the CBS broadcast and Limbaugh’s comments, its hard not to conclude that CBS ran the story with the intent to deceive its viewers.

Going back to the original comments in 2003, Limbaugh’s claim was that McNabb was not a great quarterback and that, instead, Philadelphia’s success was due largely to its defense. Because sports reporters wanted a black quarterback to be seen a successful, however, sports reporters over-emphasized McNabb’s role in the Eagle’s success and downplayed his role in its successive NFC Championship losses.

Just for the record, I agree with that anaylsis except the part about the black quarterback. I think reporters in general want to write about the next great quarterback rather than the next great NFL defense.

Regardless, this year with the Eagles in the Super Bowl, Limbaugh praised McNabb on his show and said that the quarterback had improved tremendously since 2003 and deserved the praise that was being heaped upon him. Here’s what Limbaugh said of McNabb after the NFC championship game when a caller asked if Limbaugh’s opinion of McNabb had changed,

You know, it has. Since you’ve called and brought this up: At the time (in 2003), McNabb, the Eagles were 1-3 or 1-4. McNabb couldn’t complete a pass over 20 yards. They had just come off two championship game losses and the third was coming up. But, since, yeah, there’s been a demonstrable change in McNabb’s performance, pure and simple. There’s no question there has been. I think he was motivated, inspired by a whole lot of things. There’s no question McNabb has improved and I’m happy to see it. I like quality football.

Limbaugh also told the caller that the situation in 2005 was different than in 2003, when Limbaugh made his controversial remarks, because back then, “when the defense … was propping the Eagles up, (media) were still giving McNabb credit- because there’s this social hope.”

CBS News chose to portray this exchange as nothing but one long slam against McNabb. Here’s how Jim Acosta chose to report the above remarks,

Mr. RUSH LIMBAUGH: The specific thing about Donovan McNabb was he…

ACOSTA: That is, unless, you’re Rush Limbaugh, who last week said on his talk show sports reporters give too much credit to McNabb.

Mr. LIMBAUGH: They looked the other way when the defense of the Eagles was propping the Eagles up and were still giving McNabb credit, because there’s this social hope…

ACOSTA: A social hope, Limbaugh said, for black quarterbacks.

Mr. LIMBAUGH: I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.

ACOSTA: Virtually the same remark that got him canned by ESPN in 2003. This week, McNabb fired one down Limbaugh’s throat.

Mr. DONOVAN McNABB (Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback): I don’t lower myself to anyone else because, you know, the type of person they are.

ACOSTA: For many of the sportscasters covering the Super Bowl, Limbaugh’s comments are a non-issue. The question is being raised: Do these statements say more about Donovan McNabb or Rush Limbaugh? ESPN’s Stuart Scott believes football has moved on; Limbaugh hasn’t.

What’s going on there, do you think?

Limbaugh described why he believed two years ago that Donovan McNabb was overrated — Acosta reports that as if Limbaugh still believes that way. Limbaugh praises McNabb and says he’s improved tremendously since 2003. Acosta lies and says that Limbaugh still thinks McNabb receives too much credit.

This is just like the Bill Moyers/James Watt story — “journalists” with an axe to grind simply fit the subject of their wrath into cookie cutter templates and the truth be damned.

Sources:

Rush Decision: Limbaugh Lauds McNabb. Scripps Howard, February 1, 2005.

Some reacting to comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding African-Americans in the NFL. Dan Rather and Jim Acosta, CBS News, February 4, 2005.

Dan Rather Does McNabb Hit Piece. Rush Limbaugh, February 14, 2005.

Rather’s Lying Retraction

So today Dan Rather apparently joined the ranks of right wing Internet partisans and sort of conceded the documents were fake. But Rather can’t help do a little CYA himself with this embarassing lie in his non-apology,

We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Hmmm…this is what Rather apparently thinks “good faith” means:

  • Treating a known anti-Bush partisan, Bill Burkett, as an “unimpeachable source”
  • Failing to interview Lt. Killian’s widow or son
  • Ignoring the document experts who told CBS that there were problems with the memos, while exagerrating what its signature expert Marcel Matley and document expert James Pierce actually said about the validity of the doucments
  • Giving the White House the documents three hours before broadcast and then claiming that since the White House didn’t disupte the authenticity in those 180 minutes that this was evidence they were authentic
  • Slamming as right wing partisans Internet critics who established within 24 hours of the 60 Minutes II broadcast that the documents were almost certainly fakes
  • Stonewalling and insisting that there was no need for an internal CBS investigation, much less an independent investigation, for more than a week after it was abundantly clear that there were serious problems with the memos

It was kind of funny to see Rather ripping on Fox the other day when a Fox reporter tried to get his comments about the scandal. Fox has been a favorite whipping boy of liberals and leftists and an object of scorn for many media elites. But Rather has proven the most diehard critics of the “liberal media” correct in this case — Rather and CBS were so anxious to get a scoop that could have affected the upcoming presidential election that they appear to have put their ideological and intellectual blinders on and ran the story based on almost nothing in the way of verification, and then stubbornly insisted the story was true . . . had to be true . . . when it was clear to most everyone else that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.

I have friends who refuse to watch anything but Fox, arguing that they’re simply sick of the “liberal media’s” lies and distortions. I think that’s extreme, but it’s less so now thanks to Rather’s bizarre behavior which pretyt much confirmed every single conservative criticism of network news.

Amusing CBS Story on Fake Documents

CBS’ website actually has a CBS/AP story that reads,

CBS News planned Monday to issue a statement about documents purporting to show President Bush neglected some duties when he was in the National Guard more than 30 years ago.

. . .

According to The Washington Post, the network plans to say it was misled about the authenticity of the documents.

The New York Times reports that CBS News officials met Sunday evening with anchor Dan Rather, the reporter of the contested story, to discuss the network’s next steps.

In other news, I tried to contact the publisher of Brian.Carnell.Com for his reaction to this story, but received a stern “no comment.”

Source:

CBS Plans New Memos Statement. September 20, 2004.

Dan Rather Is a Moron

I can’t believe that Dan Rather had the gall to tell the New York Observer this,

It’s never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn’t show up for a physical. The longer we go without a denial of such things—this story is true.

. . .

I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they canÂ’t deny the fundamental truth of the story. If you canÂ’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information. And in this case, itÂ’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the truth of the documents.

Rather is completely intellectually bankrupt at this point. Why is such a loser the anchor on one of the big three network news broadcasts?

Source:

Dan Rather To Bush: ‘Answer The Questions’. Joe Hagan, New York Observer, September 15, 2004.

CBS’ Other Document Experts Say They Warned About Problem

The other experts CBS said authenticated the Killian documents are starting to surface, but they’re saying things that CBS probably doesn’t want to hear. According to ABC News, two of the experts warned CBS that there were problems with the documents,

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

“I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter,” she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

“I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story,” Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush’s National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

“I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply,” Will told ABC News.

A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. She said she expressed her concerns to CBS before the 60 Minutes II broadcast.

“I did not authenticate anything and I don’t want it to be misunderstood that I did,” James said. “And that’s why I have come forth to talk about it because I don’t want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents.”

CBS’ response? They claim they have two other document experts who authenticated the documents as well, but they won’t name them (surprise).

The documents are fake. Dan Rather and others involved have permanently damaged their credibility and will have to be suspended or fired for CBS News to retain any credibility. Finally, CBS must reveal the source who scammed it and tried to use forgeries to influence a presidentical election.

Source:

Casting Further Doubt. ABC News, September 14, 2004.

More on CBS’ Handwriting Expert

Now the New York Post suggests that CBS’ handwriting expert, Marcel Matley, might not even have any professional training in document authentication or handwriting analysis.

According to the Post, Matley got his start in the pseudo-science of graphology (the claim that you can tell much about an individual’s personality/character by their handwriting),

The expert chosen by CBS to check Dan Rather’s disputed National Guard documents got his start as a graphologist analyzing “Spirituality in Handwriting” and lacks recognized document training, The Post has learned.

Analyst Marcel Matley lists “Spirituality in Handwriting” and “Female/Male Traits in Handwriting” on the Web site for a foundation he serves as librarian. They were privately printed, but another analyst provided portions to The Post.

In “Spirituality in Handwriting,” Matley assesses a woman’s “libidinal energy” based on her handwriting.

“She has an excellent and rich animate nature with a healthy, instinctual libidinal energy which, when integrated, will propel her into dynamic and fruitful activity and self-fulfillment,” Matley wrote in 1989.

In “Female/Male Trait in Handwriting,” the San Francisco-based Matley said he could analyze a woman’s handwriting “to show her how she can have her womanly qualities fully realized.”

The article continued: “For your male client, you will be able to recognize the facade of machismo — and also recognize the hurt boy- child who uses that as a defensive hiding place.”

Moreover, in the past Matley has had to admit that he apparently has no formal training in document authentication,

In addition, in a 1995 California court deposition obtained by The Post, Matley acknowledged that he had no formal training in a document lab, in identification of papers, inks or “machines, typewriters, photocopies.” He also acknowledged he’d had no training from the U.S. Secret Service, FBI, U.S. Army, California Department of Justice or any other law-enforcement body.

Maybe he thought the Killian memos looked masculine and that was enough!

Source:

CBS Writing Ace Has Rather Wacky Background. Deborah rn, New York Post, September 14, 2004.