Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Columbia Journalsim Review)   A review of Rathergate concludes everyone involved, bloggers and mainstream media, was an idiot   (cjr.org) divider line 514
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15910 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2005 at 8:31 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



514 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-04 03:33:43 PM  
Rather and bloggers on the same footing..my how far Blather has fallen. And good riddance.
 
2005-01-04 03:37:17 PM  
That actually elevates bloggers, woot!
 
2005-01-04 03:38:08 PM  
Did the bloggers "flood the scene"?
 
2005-01-04 03:39:26 PM  
my how far Blather has fallen.

Keeping the spirit alive, eh? Sorry, CJR won't write a story featuring you.
 
2005-01-04 03:42:20 PM  
rather supporters and mainstream media apologists don't celebrate yet. CJR has an agenda just like everybody else.

for an analysis of the report from an academic who's been on the story since day one, go here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_01_00.shtml#1104802887
 
2005-01-04 03:42:56 PM  
What about Fark posters? As this thread is already reminding me, we were at the very height of civility and reason for all that nonsense.
 
2005-01-04 03:43:49 PM  
Anyone got the thread id's from fark for this?
 
2005-01-04 03:45:45 PM  
First, much of the bloggers vaunted fact-checking was seriously warped. Their driving assumptions were often drawn from flawed information or based on faulty logic. Personal attacks passed for analysis.

For tbe most part, bloggers aren't trained journalists. They shouldn't be treated as such. Rather is, so he should be held to a higher standard.

But anything a blogger says should be taken with a big ass grain of salt. They have unabashed agendas and biases, which lowers their credibility significantly.
 
2005-01-04 03:46:20 PM  
and two other responses from bloggers pointing out failings in the CJR report:

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004698.php
http://instapundit.com/archives/020229.php
 
2005-01-04 03:48:38 PM  
They have unabashed agendas and biases, which lowers their credibility significantly

sure bloggers are biased. but they admit it straight out--you know what you're getting. the media publishes its biases and then insists it's "objective"

and simply having a bias doesn't mean any facts you find are unfactual.
 
2005-01-04 03:50:45 PM  
A review of Rathergate concludes everyone involved, bloggers and mainstream media, was an idiot
 
2005-01-04 03:52:13 PM  
albo

Agreed.

Also on Fark, we have SO many dissenting opinions that you can almost get a complete story by putting all the different views together.


/I said almost:-P
 
2005-01-04 04:01:24 PM  
albo: and simply having a bias doesn't mean any facts you find are unfactual.

That nicely sums up the problem with the entire debacle. The furor over "Rathergate" eclipsed the fact that Bush shirked his military duties.
 
2005-01-04 04:02:04 PM  
albo: CJR has an agenda just like everybody else.

I just read the whole the whole link, and still don't see anything that shows evidence of an agenda by CJR. Maybe you could highlight where CJR and Pein have something to gain for the article?

It does, in effect, says several things:

A. Pein's criticism of those who called Hailey a "liar, fraud, and charlatan" are wrong because some of those people took it back. This, of course, doesn't matter. Those criticisms were made and led to a mob attack on Hailey's credibility, making it relevant to the CJR story.
B. Hailey himself attacked his critics intemperately through a post to a critical blog, and later apologized for it. This is irrelevant to the CJR article, though, which reviews media distortions, not reader comments to a blog.
C. It is of this blog's opinion that the typesetting issue is more condemning than CJR gives it credit. I still think that's open to interpretation; this blog doesn't fully refute Pein's discussions regarding the confusion surrounding the typesetting.

In other words, this blog post doesn't show an agenda, and it disproves little. It does, however, take a mixture of facts, distortions, red herrings, and opinions to mount a criticism of the article, which is in effect what the article criticized the blogs for doing in the first place.
 
2005-01-04 04:05:48 PM  
albo: sure bloggers are biased. but they admit it straight out--you know what you're getting. the media publishes its biases and then insists it's "objective"

The problem here is that many bloggers and journalists celebrated 2004 as the "Year of the Blog, with some even referring to it as the "New Media." That's where problems arise--because mainstream media generally strives to remove subjectivity from its reporting, bloggers have no place putting themselves on the same footing as these sources.

The CJR article does a good job of showing that this collective of "New Media," conservative and liberal alike, acts more like a mob than a credible news source.
 
2005-01-04 04:08:33 PM  
The furor over "Rathergate" eclipsed the fact that Bush shirked his military duties.

From the evidence available, there's nothing that definitively proves Bush's shirked his military duties.

Unless you're referring to his signing up with the National Guard instead of going to Nam?
 
2005-01-04 04:10:23 PM  
I'd say that whoever decided it was cute to put "-gate" at the end of the name of every scandal is the biggest idiot of all.
 
2005-01-04 04:12:17 PM  
The furor over "Rathergate" eclipsed the fact that Bush shirked his military duties

separate issues. the furor was a mainstream media outlet airing an extremely shoddy piece of research, not addressing the errors others pointed out, and not retracting it. the fact that it was a transparent hit piece on the president aired just before the election by an ostensibly objective TV news program didn't help.

HumbleGod, when i say agenda, i see CJR as having an overaching agenda of defending and advancing mainstream media. as for this piece, did you read the links i posted. also go to the meryl yourish piece that is linked from instapundit. she is an actual typographer. read it.

Pein picked and choosed the areas he addressed and ignored others. Hailey is a red herring. dismiss that whole episode. it confuses the issue that the memos were forgeries that could be duplicated in MS Word just as quick as you can type them. you can't obfuscate or explain that away by distracting the issue with the Hailey kerfuffle
 
2005-01-04 04:14:18 PM  
bloggers have no place putting themselves on the same footing as these sources.

and they don't. they are pundits, commentators, analysts. the traditional media does the footwork, and always will. blogs counterbalance by calling them out on presentation of facts and interpretation. Instapundit, one of the best news blog sites on teh web, was cited as a great journalist recently, and denied he was one.
 
2005-01-04 04:16:52 PM  
Alexis
I wholeheartedly agree with you, if I see one more "-gate" someones gets a gate up the arse
 
2005-01-04 04:17:43 PM  
HumbleGod:

That's where problems arise--because mainstream media generally strives to remove subjectivity from its reporting,

What news sources are you refering to?
 
2005-01-04 04:26:09 PM  
I'd say that whoever decided it was cute to put "-gate" at the end of the name of every scandal is the biggest idiot of all.


One of the worst parts of Nixon's legacy IMO.

Also...

If this is true then it puts the Rather scandal in a select group with reality TV and the OJ trial: Things about which it is impossible to argue the following "if everyone connected with _____ were to be killed the world would not be a better place".
 
2005-01-04 04:28:05 PM  
albo: when i say agenda, i see CJR as having an overaching agenda of defending and advancing mainstream media.

Cool. I was just asking if you could back that up with anything other than your beliefs.

as for this piece, did you read the links i posted.

No, but when I opened this, your other links hadn't been posted yet. What I did to is read the link, then spent way too much time (read: five minutes) reading the piece you linked, then formulated my response to that. I intend to read those others in the future (this page has been bookmarked), but for now I don't have time to formulate a response to every blog that's posting on the issue. I leave that to the liberal blogs; that's their thing, not mine.

Hailey is a red herring. dismiss that whole episode....you can't obfuscate or explain that away by distracting the issue with the Hailey kerfuffle

Indeed; I'm not sure why the Volokh page even addressed it, in that case. And I wasn't "distracting the issue" by bringing up Hailey; I was merely responding to Volokh's notes on it. If discussing Pein's account of the Hailey incident confuses the issue, remember that it was Volokh who brought it up; I just responded.

it confuses the issue that the memos were forgeries that could be duplicated in MS Word just as quick as you can type them.

As Pein points out, the fact that they can be typed in MS Word does not of itself make them forgeries.
 
2005-01-04 04:46:09 PM  
From the article:

Red flags wave here, or should have. Newcomer begins with the presumption that the documents are forgeries, and as evidence submits that he can create a very similar document on his computer. This proves nothing you could make a replica of almost any document using Word. Yet Newcomers aggressive conclusion is based on this logical error.

You can create a similar document, and that would prove nothing. But to just use the default settings in Word and get the *exact* document within 5 minutes is another thing altogether. While I wouldn't use that as my only piece of evidence, it would surely be my main one.

My unbiased, untrained conclusion: the author is an idiot.
 
2005-01-04 04:49:00 PM  
This guy is an idiot.

Newcomer begins with the presumption that the documents are forgeries, and as evidence submits that he can create a very similar document on his computer. This proves nothing you could make a replica of almost any document using Word. Yet Newcomers aggressive conclusion is based on this logical error.

Wow, that is wrong on so many levels. First, you cannot just remake any typed document on a typewriter. In fact, it's very difficult to make a Microsoft Word document exactly match anything done by a typerwriter.

Second, no person ever used that as proof of fraud, but to show a very high probablity of fraud. Almost every blogger I saw wanted the final piece of evidence, to see if the IBM typewriters *could* produce a CBS document. When those with the 1970 era typewriters tried, they all failed. So, since no typewriter exists that could produce it, and Microsoft Word's default setting matched it exactly, it's pretty safe to conclude it was a fraud.
 
2005-01-04 04:53:20 PM  
As Pein points out, the fact that they can be typed in MS Word does not of itself make them forgeries.

Given that there was a $10,000 reward (from memory - it could be higher) for anyone who could produce a typewriter capable of producing those memos and no one has been able to do so (not for lack of effort) it's pretty damning.
 
2005-01-04 04:54:13 PM  
Let's break it down here. Dan Rather is paid a shiatload of money to be the voice of CBS journalism, and he either fell asleep at the wheel or was steering down a very dangerous dirt road without a map. Shame on him for being so very, very careless and bravo to the bloggers who made it obvious that CBS had completely failed to do their homework. I hope this trend of exposing shoddy journalism continues regardless of politics or agendas.
 
2005-01-04 05:45:57 PM  
I expect in a few years Rather will take credit for Bush's reelection by intentionally distracting the public from the Chalabi and Plame scandals.
 
2005-01-04 06:48:34 PM  
For tbe most part, bloggers aren't trained journalists. They shouldn't be treated as such. Rather is, so he should be held to a higher standard.

That needed repeating. There are really only two conclusions you can draw from RatherGate:

1. Dan Rather allowed his personal bias to cloud his judgement and tried to pass off an attack ad as objective reporting.

or

2. Dan Rather was sloppy and didn't check his sources or verify his information. As such, his incompetence got him fired (as it should).

Biased jerk or incompetent idiot - not a place you ever want to be as a journalist. The only question now remaining is what OTHER stories did The Dan bugger up over the years.
 
2005-01-04 07:57:10 PM  
Oohh, Alexisgate starts here, folks. You're witnessing history.
 
2005-01-04 08:22:37 PM  
Okok, so its a major sin to accuse the president of going AWOL during his service time?

Has anyone been able to disprove that Bush went AWOL? And by that I dont mean proving the evidence presented was dodgy.

Of course I will be told that the burdon of proof is on those that accuse the President of going AWOL....

But anyway, does anyone out there believe that Bush served his entire time in the Air national guard and did his duty to its full extent?

I dont really care if he did or didnt, I do care however care if he claims to have done so, but didnt.

I have also noticed the Admin has never stated that Bush served his entire time and did so with honour. They always seem to gloss over that.
 
2005-01-04 08:34:33 PM  
Has anyone been able to disprove that Bush went AWOL?

So it's your position that a conservative is guilty until proven innocent?

I dont really care if he did or didnt, I do care however care if he claims to have done so, but didnt.

[image from images.google.com too old to be available]

"But I didn't. I only knew that you'd know that I knew. Did you know THAT? "
 
2005-01-04 08:36:26 PM  
A review of Rathergate concludes everyone involved, bloggers and mainstream media, was an idiot

Should have read '..., were idiots.'

/Your fourth grade english teacher surrenders.
 
2005-01-04 08:37:00 PM  
No surprise here. Big media ate up the crap the attacking bloggers were spewing, despite other bloggers revealing how flawed their information was. Pathetic.
 
2005-01-04 08:38:30 PM  
I'd Rather watch Fox then Rather..

/Rather clever huh ?? ;OP
 
2005-01-04 08:39:33 PM  
CJR is a mammoth fraud...a few months ago they ran an article that said that by recieving media training (i.e., working to deal with reporters and trying to deliver your messages in a straightforward, clear fashion to reporters), interview subjects, whoever they are, are subverting journalism.

Waah waah waah. Poor baby journalists...have to deal with people who are wise to their smarmy tricks...
 
2005-01-04 08:39:51 PM  
Weaver95:

2005-01-04 08:34:33 PM Weaver95 [TotalFark]

So it's your position that a conservative is guilty until proven innocent?


What was your take on Clinton when he was saying he "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

I dont really care if he did or didnt, I do care however care if he claims to have done so, but didnt.

"But I didn't. I only knew that you'd know that I knew. Did you know THAT? "



I think I know that you know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that you know that i know that you know that you know i know that you know the Bush AWOL thing is a bit murkey and no-one knows what exactly happened.
 
2005-01-04 08:40:28 PM  
And in other news, the obvious tag was replaced in a hostile takeover today by the interesting tag. Further developments to follow.
 
2005-01-04 08:41:05 PM  
What was your take on Clinton when he was saying he "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

So, what does Clinton have to do with Rathergate?
 
2005-01-04 08:42:00 PM  
Did they credit Fark? Fark was my introduction to blogging and led me to Littlegreenfootballs.

Look at the author of this piece. He is an under educated person trying to have an opinion in journalism.
 
2005-01-04 08:43:03 PM  
I don't care what you guys say, Fox News is the only thing I can ever trust, no big bias there.
 
2005-01-04 08:43:41 PM  
Klawdig, precisely. It's what CJR is all about, unfortuately.
 
2005-01-04 08:45:33 PM  
I, for one, welcome our faux journalists.

/competition; yay
 
2005-01-04 08:47:47 PM  
Weaver95:

2005-01-04 08:41:05 PM Weaver95 [TotalFark]

What was your take on Clinton when he was saying he "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

So, what does Clinton have to do with Rathergate?



Clinton has something to do with rathergate because rathergate was the mirror image occurance of the lewinski thing and the Ken Starr trial.

Much like democrats were pissed off that allegations they saw as being disproven and heresay were being made against clinton, republicans are pissed off that allegations they see as unsubstanciated are being made against Bush.

The other thing clinton and rathergate had in common was that both allegations were probably true.

Sooo, back to my question, how did you feel about the clinton allegations at the time, when it was not clear if he had or hadnt "had sexual relations with that woman"?
 
2005-01-04 08:48:07 PM  
I don't think we need Rather or CBS to tell us that Bush is a Chicken Hawk.
 
2005-01-04 08:48:33 PM  
"Given that there was a $10,000 reward (from memory - it could be higher) for anyone who could produce a typewriter capable of producing those memos and no one has been able to do so (not for lack of effort) it's pretty damning."

The reward was to prove it was a fake, not real. It was a joke.

It's fact: the typewriters they had were completely able to make these memos. The model they had included all the various features used on the memos. The secretary confirmed many of them but denied it was from her typewriter, his boss confirmed their typewriters could make that memo - the only 2 primary sources inside that NG office filling out paper work that are still alive said it was possible, with no dissenters. The secretary confirmed the allegations in the memo, and his boss only said he distrusted the terminology used, but also confirmed the allegations
 
2005-01-04 08:48:46 PM  
Dan is from Texas dontchaknow?
 
2005-01-04 08:49:48 PM  
What's amazing is that there is any controversy in the first place.

Rather used highly dubious source info for his story, then when he was exposed, blamed right-wingers for it on the CBS Evening News.

Why is that surprising? I guess that Rather was sloppy enough to be caught. The other liberal media outlets do the exact same thing. Rather must have thought he could get away with saying anything about President Bush.

Thank God for talk radio, bloggers, Matt Drudge, and Fox News.
 
2005-01-04 08:50:18 PM  
genesyn said, "I wholeheartedly agree with you, if I see one more "-gate" someones gets a gate up the arse"

Okay now I think you're just looking for excuses.
 
2005-01-04 08:51:20 PM  
I could''''''''ve faked some of those memos too if it wasn''''''''''''''t for my keyboard'''''''s sticky keys.

/one-handed fapper
 
Displayed 50 of 514 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report