CBS and Tracey

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, Sep 21, 2004.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    CBS and Dan Rather have been caught with their pants down over the George Bush letters. It's about time. Why did it take a president's involvement to stop this organization from perpetrating frauds on the public? 48 Hours has been prostituting itself for years, but we never knew it until they had Susan Bennett on there slandering Don Foster. Not once did 48 Hours do any checking to understand how Bennett set Foster up and how she pretended to be a man on the forums. Not once did 48 Hours look to see how Bennett aka jameson seemingly had much more information about the Ramsey case than any normal civilian should have had. Just look at how their Ramsey coverage has been so slanted and downright wrong in many instances.

    So, now that their blatant errors in not checking their sources better and finding out the truth about those letters have been exposed, do you think it might put a crimp in any possibility that the latest Tracey/Ramsey crockumentary might be aired on CBS? We know 48 Hours has given very slanted and questionable information out about the Ramsey case in the past. Will this latest embarrassment finally force them to stop and look at the inadequacies in their reporting of non-factual information as fact? Will it stop CBS from taking the word of any lunatic with an agenda as a basis for a story?

    I hope CBS will take a good hard look at itself and the way it has been presenting its stories for the sake of ratings and the big bucks. I hope 48 Hours catches a clue about how not researching a story completely can backfire on them in a big way, like the Tracey crock could blow up in their faces, should they ever decide to air it.
     
  2. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    "So, now that their blatant errors in not checking their sources better and finding out the truth about those letters have been exposed, do you think it might put a crimp in any possibility that the latest Tracey/Ramsey crockumentary might be aired on CBS?"

    Yes, I think so.
     
  3. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I would like to think they will become more responsible, but I have this nagging feeling this time it was more about Dan Rather, and less about the network.
     
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    You could be right, Moab. Dan Rather messed up bad and it bit him in the butt big time. I'm not so sure, though, that the network wants any further mistakes of this kind, because viewers get turned off by these kinds of mistakes.
     
  5. ACandyRose

    ACandyRose Super Moderator

    Wy

    I was just about to post about this.

    I heard a "very short" blip from Dan Rather on the 4pm EST news yesterday where he admitted the documents were fake. Gee, I guess nobody expected that the secretary who would have normally typed those documents would appear and tell the world that she never typed those memos.

    Remember CBS also dragged the Gary Oliva into one of their CBS 48 Hours stories in October 2002 sandwiching him between clips of Lou Smit and Ollie Gray with obvious suggestions that Oliva was the intruder. And you know what, even if Oliva turned out to be scum of the earth, they had no right to give the viewers the impression that he was the killer of JonBenet and that is exactly what CBS did. That was almost two years ago and has anybody arrest Olivia since he was "branded" by the CBS 48 Hours as a suspect? NO !!

    Now they are going to try and drag a dead man (Boots) and Mr. X into the mix and label them suspects even suggesting they were the Boulder Burglar of 1996. Of course nobody wants to listen to J.T. Colfax's story that he (Colfax) was in jail with the guy who was arrested and charged with being the Boulder Midnite Burglar. (Ref: http://ode2colfax.tripod.com/10141998colfax-firstletter.htm)

    ACandyRose
    =================================================
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I think CBS has screwed up on a lot of their stories, ACR, and they've been allowed to get away with putting false information into the public. This time they falsey incriminated the president of the US. What were they thinking? Have they gotten so arrogant they think they can falsely accuse anyone they want on some wingnut's word? Apparently so. Anything for a inflammatory story seems to be the norm for CBS. It's backfired on them. They should do the work before they air a story. Now, they'll pay for their failures to do so.
     
  7. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    As Why_Nut pointed out, it was the Internet people that first spotted trouble in the story.

    Of course the "bloggers" were told to "go away."

    Here is a great article on how it happened from Tech Central Station
    With permission I have copied the article here.

    http://www.techcentralstation.com

    What Dan Rather and the Carter Center Need to Learn

    By Carroll Andrew Morse Published 09/15/2004

    TCS
    Last week, independent analysis cast doubt on claims made by two prestigious information-gathering organizations. One incident you are probably familiar with. The community of bloggers presented credible evidence that documents used by CBS to support a news story about President Bush's national guard service were forgeries. The second instance, though potentially as important, received far less attention, at least in the English language media. Professors Roberto Rigobon of MIT and Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard University presented credible evidence that the results of the Venezuelan recall election, declared clean by the Carter Center, had been systematically altered.


    Initial commentary on the CBS story has focused on the blogosphere versus big-media. An even wider underlying dynamic becomes apparent when the Bush documents and the Venezuelan recall are considered together. The story is not just about the output of bloggers; it is about the inputs that analysts are able to utilize. The analysis of Charles Johnson that cast doubt on the authenticity of the Bush documents was made possible by the existence of pdf-format document sharing. Professors Rigobon and Hausmann analyzed election returns at the polling center and machine levels. They compared the returns to results from exit polls and the signature gathering phase of the referendum, and found effects not consistent with a fair election. Their timely analysis was possible because of the Internet's ability to transfer large, quantitative data sets.


    Until the Internet was established, the dissemination of primary information usually involved paper and ink -- commodities that cost money. It was economically impossible to provide everyone with every detail of every story. Editors were charged with making a trade-off. They had to decide which details were important enough to fit into the limited space they were allocated. Not all of the information could make the cut. In the Internet age, economic justifications for not releasing as much detail as possible are weaker. Very little production cost is involved is releasing primary source information in electronic format.

    Given access to primary information, people like Rigobon, Hausmann and Johnson began to ask some detailed questions. They tried starting a conversation, not just in the blogosphere, but in a wider civicsphere -- a place where people can come together and share information and ideas, using any media format available. Unfortunately, big media and elite NGOs are not used to holding conversations. They had become too used to giving lectures instead. The Carter Center, attempting to declare any questions about the recall closed after a single, controversial audit, tried to stop the conservation before it started. CBS basically told the bloggers to shut up and go away.

    Somewhere along the line, the elite gatherers of information had forgotten that their rationale for providing partial information was a practical one -- the limits related to the costs of publishing. They forgot that the ideal was giving out as much information as possible. They moved from an inability to report in maximal detail to an unwillingness to report in maximal detail.

    CBS has set itself up for special scorn in this matter. The blogosphere's complaint is not just that they may be pursuing an anti-Bush agenda, the complaint is that they have abandoned basic reporting -- the core function of their organization -- in an attempt to manipulate the agenda. Reasonable and answerable questions, including provenance of the documents, the precise qualifications of their experts, and the criteria used to establish authenticity have gone unreported, have been sluggishly reported, or have been sloppily reported and debunked in just a few hours.

    Ultimately, CBS fundamentally altered the nature of the editorial trade-off. Instead grudgingly adjusting the level of reported detail out of economic necessity, they willingly sacrificed the quality of their reporting in their attempt to manipulate the agenda.

    Though not as egregious, the Carter Center also abandoned parts of its core mission -- carefully observing electoral processes -- in order to jump to a conclusion that the election was clean. Among other problems, Carter Center reports revealed gaps in their observation of ballot boxes for at least two days following the election, gaps that allow the possibility of fraud. This information was not mentioned in their most public declaration that the election was fair. How could an organization whose primary mission is electoral observation not include a mention of problems with the direct observation of ballot boxes in their highest-level analysis?

    The deficiencies exhibited by CBS and the Carter Center are problematic not only for big media and elite NGOs. Left unaddressed, they are problems that will eventually feed back into the blogosphere. The rise of the blogosphere has been predicated on the existence of a reliable, common base of information that people can discuss -- a base of information that full-timers are still in the best position to provide. The blogosphere is most robust when it can draw upon the resources of media organizations with global reach that honestly vet sources and conduct comprehensive follow-up reporting. It depends on the boots on the ground that a Carter Center can provide to monitor elections in faraway lands. Without the work of an organization like the Carter Center, there might not be detailed election data from Venezuela to examine in the first place.

    Fortunately, there is no reason the older information-gathering institutions cannot coexist with the blogosphere, if the older institutions are willing to relinquish their unfounded claims of exclusive ownership of particular phases of the information cycle. As data-dissemination technology continues to improve, more and more individuals outside of the ranks of professional journalists and full-time policy wonks will be able to contribute world-class expertise to the realm of analysis. The older institutions must not let institutional jealousies related to their loss of primacy with respect to analysis derail them from their core mission of accurate reporting. This kind of jealousy seems to have played a role in CBS's poor follow-up to questions about the Bush documents.

    Likewise, the older institutions must also be willing to share the role of setting the public agenda. Good agendas come from efforts to answer good questions. The interplay within the blogosphere and between the blogosphere and more established information sources is an excellent mechanism for defining and refining issues. While the people of a country like Venezuela are asking reasonable, data-driven questions about their election, an organization like the Carter Center should not be telling them to move on unless they can provide complete answers to such questions.

    The established institutions -- big media and elite NGOs -- can maintain their relevance if they accept that they are no longer the undisputed last word in our civic conversations. Whether they accept this or not, the need for solid and accurate reporting will continue to exist. The most successful information-gathering organizations will be those willing to take on a core mission of disseminating as much accurate, primary information as far as they can as fast as they can. The combination of blogosphere analysis and full-time reporting will enhance the quality and quantity of information that everyone receives, and that is a positive development for everyone.

    The author is a TCS contributor.

    http://www.techcentralstation.com


    It is going to be an uphill battle with the mainstream media because they don't want us here. The fact is we are now the watch dogs. Not the media. Plain and simple. They hate it.
     
  8. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I'm not satisfied. While I have nothing against Dan Rather, from what I've read, the source for the letters claims he told CBS the letters hadn't been confirmed as authentic and he also requested that his name not be revealed. I think the problem at CBS goes much deeper than just Dan Rather. The 48 Hours program especially needs to be looked into. That program has no credibility with me since Susan Bennett was allowed to spew her nonsense on it. If the programming isn't credible, it reflects on the whole of CBS.
     
  10. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    There has to be a program manager that is responsible for the end product that we see as 48 Hours. That person's :behind: should be on the line for the kind of garbage spewed by the likes of Susan Bennett aka Jameson. JMH&CPO
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

  12. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Dan Rather went beyond professional boundaries when his own biases became more important than reporting the truth. Seems akin to how Lin Wood uses his stature to spew lies and spin. Sooner or later, all those lies have a way of catching up with the liar.
     
  13. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Yes, Indeedy!

    This is an incredible election year because the country is so divided, ergo EVERYONE seems to be totally involved in EVERYTHING that is presented on television and radio. And that FOX is the ONLY 'fair and balanced' reporting agency (e.g., someone is FINALLY getting the truth out!, that is, BOTH SIDES), the internet has become an important instrument in what gets reported and how it gets reported. I like to call 'bloggers' the new age lobbying group. This is obviated by the latest scandal with CBS and Rather as it was the bloggers who caught CBS/Rather in their fraud.

    This is a far cry from the days when Lin Wood had the gaul and audacity to make the outrageous accusation: "Personally, I think people who immerse themselves in this case on the Internet are disturbed individuals who must not have much of a life and are to be pitied."

    Woody should be p*ssing his pants about now, as he can now see the impact of such "disturbed individuals" on national politics and what's aired on television and radio. (Likewise, the SwampQueen should be p*ssing herself as well!)

    48 Hours got away with it's fraud and lies as regards the Ramsey case because blogging hadn't got the recognition it deserved, not to mention they had the idiot Wood telling them otherwise.

    I think the day has come...that is, OUR DAY has come. No longer can bloggers or internet users be tossed aside as 'disturbed individuals.' WE ARE the new age lobbying group.

    The question is: can we go back in time and bring to 48 Hours attention they f*cked up? Perhaps. I should think it would be worth a shot. Maybe we could contact the Ramsey case producer who's aired the fraudulent stories on the show, informing them that they were misled by Wood's outrageous claims of our involvement (and knowledge!) and that we DO KNOW what we're talking about and want to bring to their attention that fraud has been perpetrated upon them ... that WE WANT to expose this fraud and WE WANT them to correct all the flaws, fraud and lies they've broadcasted in the past.

    We need only to direct them to the power and intelligence and knowledge of bloggers and how bloggers have EXPOSED CBS and Dan Rather and that NOW we're about to expose them if they don't cover the truth about the Ramsey case and the fraud brought to them by Lin Wood, Lou Smit and Michael Tracey.

    While the iron is hot, I think we should strike.
     
  14. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    I am with WY 110% on this one. Regardless of your personal feelings towards Bush, and I personally can't stand the man, what Rather did was sickening. This is what happens when reporters become so egocentric and pompous that they feel the need to shove their tired 60's liberal crap down peoples' throats. Dan Rather should be FIRED.

    You all oughtta read the book "Media Bias"--it's written by a politically moderate reporter who worked for years with Dan "The Dan" Rather. It's eye-opening. Rather's ego is the size of Mt Everest.
     
  15. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Another great book is "Weapons of Mass Distortion" by Bozell (first name escapes me at the moment). Again, Bozell goes into depth (I think a whole chapter) on Dan Rather and his liberal bias and goal to "get" the conservative, regardless of cost. It also details Rather's hypocrisy as well as his unethical behavior and conflict of interest as a reporter/newsman who uses his position and influence in the Democratic party.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Why not BORGGLES

    Ginja, don't you think the name should be BORGGLES instead of BLOGGERS for obvious reasons? :borgsmile (borg smile) from the emoticon list
     
  17. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    Yeah, what Ginga said in post 13.

    Dan Rather said he was sorry for Christ's sake. (He didn't say for Christ's sake, I said that.)
     
  18. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Elle

    Unfortunately, I'm not the one who coined the word "bloggers." The first time I heard it was on Hardball when Matthews said something about going to the "bloggers" section of their website to post our opinions. I haven't a clue the derivation for the word "bloggers." Personally, I'm not crazy about it. :sothere:

    Edited to add that I wouldn't go for the term borggles for obvious reasons. That is, I wouldn't give the Swamp credit for anything! Besides, if there were ever a derivation for BORG, I'd say it was anyone who posted at the Swamp (again for obvious reasons!). :borg:
     
  19. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    "I wouldn't give the Swamp credit for anything!"

    I'd give them credit for tax evasion. I heard on some show last nite where "blogger" comes from but dog if I can remember.
     
  20. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I think the term "blogger" is a combination of the words "web logger."

    Originally, it was someone who put up an Internet site that logged the events of their day including web sites they had visited, and interesting items gleaned from the news.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice