Wednesday, September 15, 2004

CBS News Lies - New York Times Spins

There are several articles in newspapers today regarding Rathergate. The most humorous is the pair of editorials by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is upset that CBS was duped in such an obvious way. Not because it was bad journalism or a slander against the President, but because it makes it more difficult for them to try to make the same case:

Whatever the truth, CBS' real error was trying to prove a point that didn't need to be proved. It doesn't take documents for anyone to realize that Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard. And, during the Vietnam draft, nobody went into the National Guard out of passion to defend his country. It also doesn't take new documents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties when he moved to Alabama and then to Harvard Business School in Massachusetts.

The brouhaha all but managed to place Bush's Vietnam-era service off-limits as a campaign issue, after weeks in which John F. Kerry's impressive record has been under savage attack. Bush gave a smirky speech Tuesday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years. All of that is true, but not about him.


The editorial staff of these papers is like a small child that gets upset when things don't go there way. "Well the documents may be fake but George is still a bad man, mommy make him go away!" As amusing and pathetic as the LA Times piece may be, it doesn't hold a candle to the blatant partisanship of the editorial in the New York Times that includes this headline, "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says". Conservatives knew that this would be the way this argument would go. Memos are shown to the public, Memos are proven to be fakes, CBS stonewalls, eventually admits their fake, but liberals everywhere declare the idea in the memos is important, not the memos themselves. The New York Times has gone directly into the phase where they believe it is the idea in the memos that is important. They site the statement of Lt. Col. Killians 86 year old secretary who says the documents are fake, but that George W. Bush is unfit to serve. In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, she said she recalled hearing some "yak-yak" about the President at the time. The New York Times jumps on her statements about the president to say that all of the accusations about him are true, despite the fact that the only evidence to the fact at this point are four forged memos. The New York Times also fails to mention that the secretary is a certified Bush-hater. The Times did not bother to mention that she is in the "selected not elected" camp. Certainly not a non-biased observer, but certainly someone who would know if she typed the four memos in question.

The editorial pages of the New York Times and the LA Times are simply an embarrassment. They are one and the same with Dan Rather and the rest of the old media. They lash out like children when things don't go their way and they seem to dwell in this fantasy world that is only populated by elite journalists that never leave Manhattan, except to fly to the other city in the country, Los Angeles.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.