Liberty's Blog

CBS Cover-Up

The InstaPundit brings to our attention an article by John Leo. The Instapundit's focus was on, "Why was CBS in such a hurry to get the story out". The questions I have are: "Why did they take did they take so long to discredit the story?" and "Why were they so reluctant about doing this?" John Leo has some thoughts on this:

What CBS produced was the worst press scandal of our era, revealing a depth of ineptitude and arrogance that even the network's worst critics hardly suspected. Internet bloggers shredded the 60 Minutes story within three hours of the broadcast's end. Some bloggers were challenging the authenticity of the documents while the program was still being shown on the West Coast. Within a day, the mainstream press picked up the story and further devastated 60 Minutes. After five days, with the CBS story totally discredited, Rather called his critics "partisan" and said they "can't deny the core truth of this story." He also said that if there was something wrong with the documents, he would like to be the one to break the story--a story that had been broken days before but amazingly not noticed by him.

Pajama game. When the mistakes-were-made semiapology finally came, Rather emitted the phrase "if I knew then what I know now." But all he had to do to know it then was to turn on his computer or pick up a copy of the Washington Post. The network hostility to Internet commentary was obvious. One CBS news executive referred to bloggers as people writing in their pajamas (i.e., not members of our esteemed guild). Rather associated them with rumor and propaganda. This seems to mean that many in the mainstream press still don't understand bloggers and tend to associate them with the Drudge Report on its worst day. Bloggers make their case with hyperlinks to primary sources and other data. Arguments without authority count for nothing, and soft-headed analyses and hoaxes are quickly exposed. As RealClear Politics said, it's a fast-moving, "very transparent, self-correcting environment ultimately based on facts."

I think I'm beginning to understand. Could it be that Dan Rather and CBS do not read blogs? That they don't understand blogging and the Blogesphere? They might have a point, blogs are full rumor, propaganda and bias, but its real easy to identify blogs which try to be fair, and what is fact, and what is opinion. Our sources are readily checked, by just about anyone. Rather and the CBS bunch need to check out a few blogs from time to time. I think they just might find a pretty high quality product.

posted by Liberty @ 11:07 AM