Comments on: ABC’s RatherGate?

By: Howard Carter

Howard Carter — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:30:30 +0000

Terri died this morning, March 31, 2005. Life is precious to some, not to others. Mostly, life is precious only if it belongs to you, your life.

By: J. B. GRILLO

J. B. GRILLO — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:53:50 +0000

THE NOTE WAS UNSIGNED ALTHOUGH CIRCULATED BY REPUBLICANS---WHO DID NOT, AS I CAREFULLY WATCHED THE VOTE COUNTING ON CSPAN, RUSH TO THE PODIUM AND DENOUNCE IT AS A FRAUD. ALL SOME SAID WHEN ASKED WAS THEY "DIDN'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM." PLAUSIBLE DENIABLITY. I LOVE IT. AND NOW THEIR FRIENDLY BLOGS CAN STIR UP QUESTIONS.

BY THE WAY, A REPUBLICAN GAVE THE NOTE TO A DEMOCRAT WHO THEN GAVE IT TO THE PRESS. NICE HOW THOSE GUYS KEEP THEIR DIRTY HANDS CLEAN.

By: Jo macDougal

Jo macDougal — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:47:56 +0000

The MSM hates America. They will lie if need be to defame America. This is not news. It has been know by thinking people for 50 years.

By: Rod Stanton

Rod Stanton — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:05:00 +0000

The MSM has been anti_American for decades. They will broadcast anything that defames America no matter how flakey the source. They got burned in Rathergate and Jordongate but they still hate America and - to their credit- will no give up the fight.

By: slickdpdx

slickdpdx — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:35:05 +0000

I wish I had previewed my comment, especially since it ended up being so controversial. I will never go first again! If I do, I will proofread.

#1. Fake but accurate - a joke! I will bet you right now though, that the memo is real but is not what the MSM is pretending it is (i.e. a secret policy memo ciruclated by a few in the know & obtained by an intrepid whistleblower or clever muckraker.)
#2. There are a few different angles to this thing. I agree that the reporting is slanted. A memo like this is a big yawn as far as I'm concerned. So what if a party realizes its opponent is weak and chooses to use an issue to attack? Why cover it this way? One reason is, rather than encouraging or engaging in real thinking about some difficult issues, they'd like to emphasize opposition to the evil Republicans and make it a partisan issue. Another reason is because "uncovering secret memos" makes it sound like the journalist is on to something sensational. It sells news and it excites the journalist. That's likely a big part of why s/he went into journalism!

By: JW

JW — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:51:10 +0000

The "big issue" here is the tendency of the MSM to print controversial stories citing documents whose provenance they then refuse to disclose, citing the First Amendment/shield laws/confidentiality concerns. That tendency was exploited by whoever produced the disputed TANG memos of Rathergate, as well as by political operatives since at least the time of Richard Nixon's "plumbers". Journalists (of which I am one) are far too quick nowadays to hide behind the confidentiality defense, which has impacted several stories of the past year, including The Plame Affair and Rathergate. Does the focus on the authenticity shift the story from the alleged crassness of the Republicans? Yes. Is that why conservative bloggers are investigating it? I don't think so. I think there's a sentiment that if as a news organization, you're going to market the memo as evidence of how eeeeevil Republicans are to put such crass sentiments in writing and how stupid they are to pass it out to everyone on Capitol Hill, you'd damn sure better know who prepared it and how, even if you don't choose to reveal that information to the public. ABC has admitted they don't know who originated it--they just know who gave them a copy and won't even reveal that information. Stupid, stupid, stupid. When I do a story, even if I don't print the answer to a question my editor may have about the story, I KNOW the answer to it and can defend leaving that information out.

By: Kappiy

Kappiy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:04:57 +0000

It seems clear that Michael Schiavo has bugged or broken into Karl Rove's office to get the info contained in that memo.

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:47:54 +0000

"Even assuming the memo is fake (which seems doubtful), its accurate" OR Even assuming the memo is accurate (which seems doubtful), it's fake. "Going after the memo as fake, supports the idea that the discussion of issues raised in the memo is somehow improper when they are not." Since we're on the subject of the election, then what's the problem with the Swift Boat Vets, and why didn't Kerry release his full military record? What's the problem with discussing those "issues"?

By: B. Minich, PI

B. Minich, PI — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:45:34 +0000

Well, everything is either politics to begin with, or becomes politics as the issue progresses.

By: basil's blog

basil's blog — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:11:09 +0000

Lunch: 3/24/2005 Try one of these specials with your lunch: ScrappleFace tells who's in charge. Iowahawk talks vegetables. Eyes On The Ball News shows pain is good. Outside The Beltway talks memos. IMAO's Frank J. talks memos. IMAO's (and Bad Example's) Harvey

By: slickdpdx

slickdpdx — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:57:43 +0000

I'm not seeing the big issue here. Even assuming the memo is fake (which seems doubtful), its accurate. So what if some legislators try to persuade other legislators to back their position, isn't that what politics is about? Going after the memo as fake, supports the idea that the discussion of issues raised in the memo is somehow improper when they are not. I think most people think such a memo is not a big deal. Its just news reporters trying to undermine what they recognioze is the more sympathetic position in the dispute. They want us to see who is on which side and respond accordingly, rather than consider the particular issue.