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.

(RealClear)   60 Minutes reporter apologizes for getting Dan Rather'd   (realclear.com) divider line 80
    More: Followup, CBS, Benghazi, Lara Logan, Threshold Editions, Schuster, private security company, Brian Stelter, CBS This Morning  
•       •       •

1544 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2013 at 1:07 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-08 12:05:14 PM
I'm surprised the right wing pundits aren't all over this Lamestream Media Failure for some reason or other
 
2013-11-08 12:20:03 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-08 01:04:01 PM
I don't understand.  They wait over a year to do this story, then botch a source.  They never once mentioned Obama or Clinton in their original segment.  But I guess that is moot because the credibility of the whole segment is now out the window.

I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.  First, it would be the 60 Minutes reporter doing the Dan Rather'ing.  Second, Lara Logan actually checked out her source, instead of just running with this unverified paper that was supposed to be from the 1970's, but was written on Microsoft Word.  And Logan didn't try to manipulate an election like Rather did.  Unless you count the fact they spiked the story for a year intentionally to manipulate an election.
 
2013-11-08 01:05:53 PM
What's the frequency Kenneth?
 
2013-11-08 01:09:51 PM
thanks obama
 
2013-11-08 01:11:02 PM
Is it a scandal yet?
 
2013-11-08 01:11:07 PM

SlothB77: Second, Lara Logan actually checked out her source


Not very thoroughly, apparently!
 
2013-11-08 01:15:41 PM

SlothB77: I don't understand.  They wait over a year to do this story, then botch a source.  They never once mentioned Obama or Clinton in their original segment.  But I guess that is moot because the credibility of the whole segment is now out the window.

I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.  First, it would be the 60 Minutes reporter doing the Dan Rather'ing.  Second, Lara Logan actually checked out her source, instead of just running with this unverified paper that was supposed to be from the 1970's, but was written on Microsoft Word.  And Logan didn't try to manipulate an election like Rather did.  Unless you count the fact they spiked the story for a year intentionally to manipulate an election.


Hahahahah

And there it is, folks. Romney would have won if only the MSM had interviewed a liar prior to the election.

Poor Lara though, her foxnews audition went terribly.
 
2013-11-08 01:16:54 PM

NewportBarGuy: Is it a scandal yet?


Benghazighazi!

Or BenGhazi2
 
2013-11-08 01:17:24 PM
I'll forgive her because she's attractive.
 
2013-11-08 01:18:22 PM

HotWingConspiracy: SlothB77: I don't understand.  They wait over a year to do this story, then botch a source.  They never once mentioned Obama or Clinton in their original segment.  But I guess that is moot because the credibility of the whole segment is now out the window.

I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.  First, it would be the 60 Minutes reporter doing the Dan Rather'ing.  Second, Lara Logan actually checked out her source, instead of just running with this unverified paper that was supposed to be from the 1970's, but was written on Microsoft Word.  And Logan didn't try to manipulate an election like Rather did.  Unless you count the fact they spiked the story for a year intentionally to manipulate an election.

Hahahahah

And there it is, folks. Romney would have won if only the MSM had interviewed a liar prior to the election.

Poor Lara though, her foxnews audition went terribly.


Her audition in Eqypt went even worse:

She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline". She went on to say that they tore off her clothes and, in her words, raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp.

Worst. Audition. Ever.
 
2013-11-08 01:19:36 PM
The funniest thing about the Rather story and all the hoopla surrounding it is that we still don't know where Bush satisfied his National Guard requirements for that year.
 
2013-11-08 01:20:01 PM
Lara Logan.
I always knew she had this in her.
 
2013-11-08 01:21:07 PM

DarnoKonrad: I'll forgive her because she's attractive.


img.fark.net
 
2013-11-08 01:21:11 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: The funniest thing about the Rather story and all the hoopla surrounding it is that we still don't know where Bush satisfied his National Guard requirements for that year.



Hard to say, but I do know that not one, NOT ONE, North Vietnamese solider set foot in Texas with George W. Bush defending her.
 
2013-11-08 01:21:23 PM

SlothB77: I don't understand.


You should have just stopped there.
 
2013-11-08 01:21:49 PM
Yes. Face.

Farl 60 Minutes when they pull shiat like this.
 
2013-11-08 01:26:27 PM

SlothB77: I don't understand.  They wait over a year to do this story, then botch a source.


Follow the money.  A CBS division is publishing the guy's book.
 
2013-11-08 01:26:28 PM
thumbnails.hulu.com

"...and then I hit him in the face with the butt of my rifle. Yeah, that's the ticket."
 
2013-11-08 01:27:23 PM
What kind of idiot tells that type of lie anyway? How did he think that he was going to get away with telling a lie that his employer and the FBI would counter with his own words on a program that was going to be broadcast internationally? And his story was so ridiculous. That was a story you tell to the bar fly your trying to take to the motel after the bar tender calls last call, not on a news show.
 
2013-11-08 01:29:41 PM
CBS really sucks at fact checking. Were they going for the Republican Retard viewer demographic with that story? No one except the most retarded Republican cares about Benghazi anymore or thinks it's a scandal
 
2013-11-08 01:31:21 PM
Well, at least it's a scandal now.
 
2013-11-08 01:32:10 PM
Benghazigate.  The coverup of the coverup is always worse than the coverup.
 
2013-11-08 01:32:31 PM
Hey guys, you don't know what really happened at Benghazi, and I was THERE

/if be 'there' I mean at my hotel in Brussels
 
2013-11-08 01:32:34 PM

SlothB77: I don't understand.  They wait over a year to do this story, then botch a source.  They never once mentioned Obama or Clinton in their original segment.  But I guess that is moot because the credibility of the whole segment is now out the window.

I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.  First, it would be the 60 Minutes reporter doing the Dan Rather'ing.  Second, Lara Logan actually checked out her source, instead of just running with this unverified paper that was supposed to be from the 1970's, but was written on Microsoft Word.  And Logan didn't try to manipulate an election like Rather did.  Unless you count the fact they spiked the story for a year intentionally to manipulate an election.


I think that this probably just lends credence to the well-respected theory that the media has a liberal bias.  I mean, isn't it much more likely that 60 minutes is doing this precisely to impugn the credibility of the entire Benghazi accountability movement?  I wouldn't be surprised if this source is a liberal plant that Mike Wallace hired to besmirch the tireless work of various patriots who merely want to root out perfidy in the Executive.
 
2013-11-08 01:33:03 PM

machoprogrammer: CBS really sucks at fact checking. Were they going for the Republican Retard viewer demographic with that story? No one except the most retarded Republican cares about Benghazi anymore or thinks it's a scandal



I don't know how many people around here remember, but 60 Minutes damn near ran Audi out of business in the 1980s by reporting bullshiat.
 
2013-11-08 01:33:45 PM
Would this be considered Benghazi-gate-gate? I am curious how that works
 
2013-11-08 01:34:30 PM
In hindsight, the fact that the Benghazi source blurted out, "Baba Booey, Howard Stern's penis!" at the conclusion of the interview should have given us pause. We regret the error.
 
2013-11-08 01:34:53 PM

DarnoKonrad: machoprogrammer: CBS really sucks at fact checking. Were they going for the Republican Retard viewer demographic with that story? No one except the most retarded Republican cares about Benghazi anymore or thinks it's a scandal


I don't know how many people around here remember, but 60 Minutes damn near ran Audi out of business in the 1980s by reporting bullshiat.


They are like my aunt who reads and sends FWD: FWD: FWD: emails
 
2013-11-08 01:35:27 PM

machoprogrammer: Would this be considered Benghazi-gate-gate? I am curious how that works


It's Benghazi-gate-Gate-GATE-GATE-Sarah Palin is President.
 
2013-11-08 01:36:18 PM

DarnoKonrad: machoprogrammer: CBS really sucks at fact checking. Were they going for the Republican Retard viewer demographic with that story? No one except the most retarded Republican cares about Benghazi anymore or thinks it's a scandal


I don't know how many people around here remember, but 60 Minutes damn near ran Audi out of business in the 1980s by reporting bullshiat.


Oh man. The brake pedal to close to the gas pedal "sudden acceleration" bullshiat. Truly shameful.
 
2013-11-08 01:36:34 PM

ongbok: What kind of idiot tells that type of lie anyway? How did he think that he was going to get away with telling a lie that his employer and the FBI would counter with his own words on a program that was going to be broadcast internationally? And his story was so ridiculous. That was a story you tell to the bar fly your trying to take to the motel after the bar tender calls last call, not on a news show.


He's a sick sort of genius. He realized pretty damned quickly that the mouth breathers (the ones that'll buy his book, mind you) aren't ever going to believe the official sources regarding Benghazi. So why not make up a bunch of BS, make a ton of money off of these idiots, and then retire comfortably? Sure as hell beats contract security work in places like Libya, right?
 
2013-11-08 01:38:47 PM
Meh, if I want facts I'll just read fark.
 
2013-11-08 01:39:59 PM

whidbey: machoprogrammer: Would this be considered Benghazi-gate-gate? I am curious how that works

It's Benghazi-gate-Gate-GATE-GATE-Sarah Palin is President.


Shouldn't there be an Obama-sent-back-to-Kenya in there, too?
 
2013-11-08 01:40:01 PM

Phony_Soldier: Meh, if I want facts I'll just read fark.


I get all my information from the banner ads.
 
2013-11-08 01:40:28 PM
poor, sexy Lara.
 
2013-11-08 01:40:35 PM
img.spokeo.com

Your criticisms are all invalid.
 
2013-11-08 01:41:04 PM

whidbey: Phony_Soldier: Meh, if I want facts I'll just read fark.

I get all my information from the banner ads.


Did you ever get to meet the Mom who discovered a $5 anti-aging secret that has dermatologists mad? I bet she is a nice, clever lady
 
2013-11-08 01:41:52 PM

SlothB77: I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.


Actually, it's pretty much the same. The Rathergate source of the documents was a Lt. Col. Bill Burkett who was an actually Texas Army National Guard officer who might hypothetically have access to those documents. They interviewed two other officers who said that they thought the documents accurately reflected Killian's views and tone (that it sounded like something he would write.) They got 4 people to analyze the document; two said it was genuine, one said there were concerns about the superscript being rarely in use but couldn't say either way, and the last said the quality was too poor to judge. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.

In this case the source of the testimony was a guy who they confirmed was a contractor who could have been at Benghazi on 9/11/2012. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.
 
2013-11-08 01:42:40 PM

whidbey: Phony_Soldier: Meh, if I want facts I'll just read fark.

I get all my information from the banner ads.


I knew I was missing out on something when I enabled AdBlock.


/Uninformed :(
 
2013-11-08 01:47:15 PM

Phony_Soldier: whidbey: Phony_Soldier: Meh, if I want facts I'll just read fark.

I get all my information from the banner ads.

I knew I was missing out on something when I enabled AdBlock.


/Uninformed :(


You are, however, reliably infromed.
 
2013-11-08 01:48:40 PM

Grungehamster: SlothB77: I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.

Actually, it's pretty much the same. The Rathergate source of the documents was a Lt. Col. Bill Burkett who was an actually Texas Army National Guard officer who might hypothetically have access to those documents. They interviewed two other officers who said that they thought the documents accurately reflected Killian's views and tone (that it sounded like something he would write.) They got 4 people to analyze the document; two said it was genuine, one said there were concerns about the superscript being rarely in use but couldn't say either way, and the last said the quality was too poor to judge. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.

In this case the source of the testimony was a guy who they confirmed was a contractor who could have been at Benghazi on 9/11/2012. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.


Except pretty much every other typewriting expert saw the documents and basically laughed about how fake they were. I am sure the content was accurate, but the documents were pretty obvious a forgery (especially given the supposed backstory).

Running the Benghazi story itself was just stupid; no one cares about it anymore, the general consensus is that it is not a scandal (not counting the 1% idiots out there) and nothing good could come from running it.
 
2013-11-08 01:53:09 PM

machoprogrammer: Running the Benghazi story itself was just stupid; no one cares about it anymore, the general consensus is that it is not a scandal (not counting the 1% idiots out there) and nothing good could come from running it.


And that is who they were counting on to tune in for that episode. If that 1% tuned in it would have been a huge ratings boost for that night. That is all that they cared about, not if the story was implausible. It is the whole beg for forgiveness later model of doing business.
 
2013-11-08 01:54:20 PM

machoprogrammer: Running the Benghazi story itself was just stupid; no one cares about it anymore, the general consensus is that it is not a scandal (not counting the 1% idiots out there) and nothing good could come from running it.


Except book sales.
 
2013-11-08 01:56:41 PM

show me: [img.spokeo.com image 441x600]

Your criticisms are all invalid.


She's boobalicious!!!!
 
2013-11-08 02:12:42 PM
FTFA: Admission of the reporting error marks a rare misstep for the venerable CBS program, which has established itself as a paragon among TV-news outlets for its thorough reportage.

A paragon of thorough reportage?  Is this supposed to be tongue-in-cheek humor or what?
 
2013-11-08 02:18:32 PM
Nearly a decade ago, claims made in a "60 Minutes II" report about President George W. Bush's service in the National Guard in the 1970s turned out to be based on documents that could not be authenticated. In the aftermath of that report, CBS set up an independent investigation into the report, which eventually led to CBS News President Andrew Heyward leaving the company.

Sorry, bullshiat. They were flat out forgeries, the most glaring mistake is that the forgers used a variable spaced font, which wouldn't have existed on a typewriter. "could not be authenticated" is bullshiat-ese. As much as I hate Bush, the only proper term to refer to those documents is "bad forgeries".

Now, back to the story at hand, I asked this earlier. WHICH story is considered to be the right one from this guy? Was he ordered to "stand down"? Did he make a heroic assault on the embassy and se the ambassador at the hospital? Did he get stuck at roadblocks and never make it there? It seems like he's given all 3 stories and none of these news reporters seem to be clear on which one is the real one.
 
2013-11-08 02:26:44 PM
Was this fake info supportive or against the Administration?  Who benefited from dude's testimony?  Just the dude?  I know I'm supposed to be outraged at CBS, but whom else?  Like the midget in the rape case:  who put him up to it?
 
2013-11-08 02:29:44 PM

Grungehamster: SlothB77: I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.

Actually, it's pretty much the same. The Rathergate source of the documents was a Lt. Col. Bill Burkett who was an actually Texas Army National Guard officer who might hypothetically have access to those documents. They interviewed two other officers who said that they thought the documents accurately reflected Killian's views and tone (that it sounded like something he would write.) They got 4 people to analyze the document; two said it was genuine, one said there were concerns about the superscript being rarely in use but couldn't say either way, and the last said the quality was too poor to judge. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.

In this case the source of the testimony was a guy who they confirmed was a contractor who could have been at Benghazi on 9/11/2012. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.


Those are shiatty "experts". I only took 3 years of graphic design, including a digital prepress class, and could tell it wasn't printed on a typewriter EVER with a quick glance. Typewriters use the same amount of space for a 'Z' as they do for an 'i' or an 'l', this had variable spaced fonts, which don't give that weird 'missing tooth' look that typed documents can have. An actual expert would have noticed this.

The takeaway here is that CBS needs MUCH better fact checkers and "experts".
 
2013-11-08 02:32:56 PM

Mikey1969: Grungehamster: SlothB77: I don't think this counts as getting Dan Rather'd.

Actually, it's pretty much the same. The Rathergate source of the documents was a Lt. Col. Bill Burkett who was an actually Texas Army National Guard officer who might hypothetically have access to those documents. They interviewed two other officers who said that they thought the documents accurately reflected Killian's views and tone (that it sounded like something he would write.) They got 4 people to analyze the document; two said it was genuine, one said there were concerns about the superscript being rarely in use but couldn't say either way, and the last said the quality was too poor to judge. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.

In this case the source of the testimony was a guy who they confirmed was a contractor who could have been at Benghazi on 9/11/2012. Nothing contradicted the version of the story they were presented.

Those are shiatty "experts". I only took 3 years of graphic design, including a digital prepress class, and could tell it wasn't printed on a typewriter EVER with a quick glance. Typewriters use the same amount of space for a 'Z' as they do for an 'i' or an 'l', this had variable spaced fonts, which don't give that weird 'missing tooth' look that typed documents can have. An actual expert would have noticed this.

The takeaway here is that CBS needs MUCH better fact checkers and "experts".


This.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report