More on Rathergate and Political Bias at CBS
Lorie Byrd of Polipundit is blogging the hell out of this story. She makes the essential point with great clarity and logic -- that CBS was operating under a remarkably transparent double standard in which 250+ Swift Boat Veterans could be ignored or disparaged but a story presented by a partisan Democrat with an axe to grind was "rushed" to air without sufficient "vetting." By itself, the comparison shows the immense, systemic liberal bias at CBS. That the Thornburgh report couldn't bring themselves to say so proves that it was a whitewash.
Let me put it differently, though. Consider: on the facts presented to Mary Mapes in August 2004, there were, in fact, two ways to tell the "story." The first way is the way CBS did present the story, as a fairly trivial yarn about special treatment for George W. Bush in the TANG 35 years earlier. On the whole, somewhat problematic for the Bush team, but not on the whole that meaningful, methinks, to the majority of voters, because we had already processed the fact that Bush had been a bit of a ne-er do well who had been redeemed by Christ and the love of a good woman. (Frankly, that storyline probably actually helps Bush.)
The second way is the following: a well-connected Kerry fundraiser, Ben Barnes, and other Texas Democrats, are peddling stories about President Bush. They present documents to us, the Killian memos, purporting to show that Bush was given preferential treatment in the TANG in the late 1960s, and perhaps disobeyed orders to get a physical, went AWOL, etc. But our document examiners have some problems with them. And other people are telling us that Killian wouldn't have written something like that, including Killian's widow and son. The documents on their face, viewed objectively, don't pass the smell test... dude, they look like they were printed out on my Dell. What gives? Do the Democrats have a dirty tricks operation? Has someone with connections to the Kerry campaign conspired to perpetrate a federal crime, forgery of government documents, in an effort to influence a Presidential election, not 35 years ago, but right now, in 2004? How high up does the conspiracy go?
Which is the better story? The 35 year-old story about Bush's ne-er do well youth that we already know and have already discounted? Or the brand-new 2004 vintage story about the Democratic Party in Texas conspiring to commit forgeries to influence a Presidential election in wartime? Which story would a real news organization try to run down? A Pulitzer Prize was just waiting out there for someone, anyone, to pick up, and CBS (and, indeed, much of the mainstream media), just let it lie there. That's what proves the liberal bias.
Let me put it differently, though. Consider: on the facts presented to Mary Mapes in August 2004, there were, in fact, two ways to tell the "story." The first way is the way CBS did present the story, as a fairly trivial yarn about special treatment for George W. Bush in the TANG 35 years earlier. On the whole, somewhat problematic for the Bush team, but not on the whole that meaningful, methinks, to the majority of voters, because we had already processed the fact that Bush had been a bit of a ne-er do well who had been redeemed by Christ and the love of a good woman. (Frankly, that storyline probably actually helps Bush.)
The second way is the following: a well-connected Kerry fundraiser, Ben Barnes, and other Texas Democrats, are peddling stories about President Bush. They present documents to us, the Killian memos, purporting to show that Bush was given preferential treatment in the TANG in the late 1960s, and perhaps disobeyed orders to get a physical, went AWOL, etc. But our document examiners have some problems with them. And other people are telling us that Killian wouldn't have written something like that, including Killian's widow and son. The documents on their face, viewed objectively, don't pass the smell test... dude, they look like they were printed out on my Dell. What gives? Do the Democrats have a dirty tricks operation? Has someone with connections to the Kerry campaign conspired to perpetrate a federal crime, forgery of government documents, in an effort to influence a Presidential election, not 35 years ago, but right now, in 2004? How high up does the conspiracy go?
Which is the better story? The 35 year-old story about Bush's ne-er do well youth that we already know and have already discounted? Or the brand-new 2004 vintage story about the Democratic Party in Texas conspiring to commit forgeries to influence a Presidential election in wartime? Which story would a real news organization try to run down? A Pulitzer Prize was just waiting out there for someone, anyone, to pick up, and CBS (and, indeed, much of the mainstream media), just let it lie there. That's what proves the liberal bias.
posted by PDB at 7:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home