The fools

The fools

: Even the Rathergate Commission disses blogs. Andrew Sullivan found the quote on page 153:

This was followed on the morning of September 9 by further attacks, mostly by bloggers with a conservative agenda, challenging the authenticity of the documents. These included stories on Powerlineblog.com and littlegreenfootballs.com. Finally, by about 3 p.m., Matt Drudge, the author of the widely read Drudge Report website, had joined the fray, and, thereafter, the onslaught of attacks on the authenticity of the Killian documents was unrelenting.

“Bloggers with a conservative agenda”? How dare they? How about “bloggers who care about the truth”? Or “bloggers who care about reforming journalism”? Or “bloggers who can pound sand in a rathole, unlike Mr. Rather”? And how can they object, then, to people characterizing Rather — antimatter to bloggers’ matter in this case — as someone with a liberal agenda? What’s good for the goose is good for the goosed.

And how does the commission handle just that questionof CBS bias?

The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias. The Panel does note, however, that on such a politically charged story, coming in the midst of a presidential campaign in which military service records had become an issue, there was a need for meticulous care to avoid any suggestion of an agenda at work. The Panel does not believe that the appropriate level of care to avoid the appearance of political motivation was used in connection with this story.

I, of course, will take this a step further, believing in the need for and benefit of transparency, as I do. So don’t call it “bias.” Don’t call it “liberal.” Instead, we should expect Rather to give us his “perspective.” Do you like George Bush, Mr. Rather? Do you respect him? Do you think he is a good President? Do you believe he gave his full service in the military? That perspective unquestionably colors coverage and unless Rather and the producers are open about it, people are free to assume what their perspective is based on their actions. That’s the issue, guys.

It’s simplistic and insulting and wrong to dismiss the bloggers as people with a political “agenda.” And it’s also simplistic and insulting and wrong to expect the public to believe that you have no agenda.

Lots of people have agendas. The worst kind are the hidden ones.

: The other problem with trying to sum up either side in this in one word — “liberal” or “conservative” — is that it misses the far more subtle and important issue of the quality of the journalism, the credibility of the reporting, the service to the public. I had an email exchange with a CNN news producer I’ve come to respect after many long brainstorms about many stories and she said:

these are people who are good people who did their job less well than they should have but are NOT ideologically driven. i know mary murphy and betsy west well. josh howard is a mensch. what the bloggers don’t consider in covering this story is that all news now moves faster than the speed of thought. these people did an inadequate job in a very frantic and competitive environmnet. yes, they were making charges about a sitting president and i don’t condone their work. but mary and betsy have worked in news for many many years and their failure to ask the right questions in a timely fashion should not obscure their enormous contributions over the long haul. at the end of the day these people are– like everyone else– just people. they weren’t on top of their game. they engaged in group think. but the one’s i know are not partisans. and to have this story become a defining moment for them and for the network they work for seems to me to be wrong.

There are bigger issues here — and bigger lessons to learn! This is also about improving and protecting the service of journalism.

: This producer said — just as the Brigitte Quinn said when we were off-camera on FoxNews this morning — that we’ve all made mistakes in our careers. So on the one hand, that makes us loathe to pile on Rather and the CBS producers. But on the other hand, it’s all the more reason to be open and transparent about the mistakes.

CBS’ and Rather’s real sin — and too often journalism’s real sin — is hubris: the belief that we’re right and we don’t make mistakes and we don’t need to explain ourselves. That is precisely what is wrong here.

If — as I’ve said before — Rather had come out as soon as the bloggers caught the apparent — obvious — forgery and said, “Thank you; let’s get to the truth together,” people wouldn’t necessarily like him any better, but they’d respect him more. If these producers and their bosses — the finger-pointing, buck-passing ones still employed — had come out immediately and acknoweldged their screw up, I’ll bet they’d all be not only wiser but still employed today. But they didn’t. They hid behind their hubris and the belief that they don’t make mistakes. We all do. The sooner we own up to them, the better it is for our credibility.

: LATER… Chicken: Drudge says Rather is taking the day off.

: LATER STILL… I’m scheduled to be on Hugh Hewitt’s show re Rather at about 8:40p ET.

  • http://www.familygreenberg.com/ Brian Greenberg

    Hello all. Long time reader, first time commenter…
    I’ve been watching this story make its way through the blogosphere with quite a bit of interest. On the one hand, the blogosphere is like the SETI Screen Saver for news – thousands of people each dedicating some partial amount of their processing power to working on a problem, creating a machine more powerful than the MSM.
    On the other hand, I must admit – crowing too loudly about the “power of the blogs” in the face of this, a clear victory, could come back to bite us in the end.
    The simple truth is that the blogs are not as well resourced as the MSM, nor do they typically have the same level of access. A *good* journalist at a major network could use these advantages to provide better information than the average blogger every day of the week.
    Also, there are fewer free-market forces at work to drive fair & accurate reporting on blogs. When 60 Minutes gets it wrong, they lose viewers and advertising revenue. If a blogger gets it wrong, typically the worst that happens is that he/she goes back to his/her day job.
    Finally, there isn’t even an implied expectation of impartiality on a blog (as names like Ratherbiased.com and Rathergate.com suggest). Not that I’m that fussed about four CBS employees losing their jobs, but I certainly don’t feel like I can turn to the blogosphere to get their side of the story (unless, of course, they make use of their impending free time to start their own blogs). Yet Jeff is offended when they are accused of having “a conservative agenda.”
    Bottom line – the court of public opinion has always been powerful, and now it’s supported by a worldwide computer network. That’s a great thing, and should be encouraged, but let’s not get all holier-than-thou, OK?

  • BigFire

    It’s simply another instance of priests believing that they alone possess the insight into truth. Except in this case, the priest caste are the ‘journalists’ who believe that truth is what they divine it to be.

  • Gregg

    the priest caste are the ‘journalists’ who believe that truth is what they divine it to be.
    But how is this different than bloggers thinking that the truth is what they devine it to be through some combination of cross-links, comments, and “fact-checking”? There’s no guarantee that just becuase a certain post is on top of Technorati or has 1000 comments, its is somehow more accurate, more important, or closer to some “truth” ideal.

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    Right, Gregg, there are no guarantees in life, but what’s your experience? Certainly in this one case the bloggers were right and the MSM was wrong. And there are others.

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    And if a certain post is on top of Technorati and has 1000 comments, and it’s inaccurate, many of the comments and links to it will be for the purpose of pointing out that inaccuracy. Instantly.

  • Allison

    returning to your colleague’s comment:
    “[they were] …just people. they weren’t on top of their game. they engaged in group think. but the one’s i know are not partisans.”
    not partisan??? What do they think that means? Is anyone going to claim that Mary Murphy, Betsy West, Josh Howard would have allowed this to go forward with so little checking if it had been about J F Kerry’s Vietnam service?
    oh wait–we know the answer, because we saw how the Swift Vets were handled. No, they wouldn’t have. So, there was a double standard based on their perspectives/biases, which in this case, were partisan.
    I don’t know what your colleague meant by “partisan”, but apparently, it isn’t what the rest of us mean.
    We all have our perspectives and biases. The best thing is to disclose them– TO OURSELVES and to the public. Once we disclose them, we can then push hard AGAINST them. We can be like good scientists: work our darnedest to prove that our preferred biases are wrong, taking even more care to be critical of the side we support.
    If we can’t admit that we are fallible and filled with our perspectives, then we can’t ever get past that hubris, no matter how much evidence there is.
    Of course, blogs can make the same mistake, but as Jim Treacher points out, we’ll be found out rather quickly won’t we?

  • Fred Z

    Worst thing is the possibly huge story Rather missed, namely, the forger.
    Someone tried a forgery to slander a sitting president. Fantastic.
    Maybe it was a small time nutbar. Rather never bothered with the possibility that it was a Kerry operative or a senior Democrat. Had he pursued the question, and had the forger been a Democrat grand fromage … now there’s a story.
    Rather, Mapes, CBS et al. are worse than dishonest. They are stupid. Pissed in their own pond. Fouled their own nest.

  • http://www.perrspectives.com Perrspectives

    While the CBS story is important (and embarrassing), it pales compared to Armstrong Williams and Payolagate.

    Speaking of Armstrong Williams, Perrspectives.com is holding its first ever “Name That Bush Scandal Contest.

    - More -

  • dries

    it pales in comparison to how much money hillary’s guy managed to hide & got indicted for.
    what armstrong got over time , jesse jackson jr. gets in one afternoon thanks to his gov’t contacts & daddy’s shenaneegans. let armstrong’s fate be a lesson to blacks who dare to become conservatives -payola isn’t a crime, if beneficiaries are democrats

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    Meanwhile, the blackout of Rathergate on the leftwing blogs continues: still nothing on Daily Kos, Atrios, Josh Marshall, Marc Cooper, Tapped, or Kevin Drum.
    Do we live in parallel universes all of a sudden?

  • http://oliverwillis.com Oliver

    News org practices sloppy journalism: news at 11. Yawn.
    President pays off pundit to spew propaganda? That’s a real news story.
    And Jeff, it was partisan bloggers with an axe to grind. Truth was the last thing on that lot’s mind.

  • http://hubris.typepad.com Hubris

    Oliver,
    News org practices sloppy journalism: news at 11. Yawn.
    If this is such a freaking yawn,why do you bother with your day job at a place called…what was it…oh yes, mediamatters.org? With headlines such as today’s “Wash. Post columnist relied on dubious study to promote tort reform”?
    Perhaps because the “media,” I dunno, “matters”?
    Now, let’s look at your group’s mission statement:
    Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
    I happen to think there is nothing wrong with that mission statement. The site provides a service.
    However, to find you saying here:
    And Jeff, it was partisan bloggers with an axe to grind. Truth was the last thing on that lot’s mind.
    …leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. What is it? Ah, yes: Irony.

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    From Oliver’s comment, we can surmise one thing: whores stick together. He’s been called David Brock’s bitch, and he shows us why.

  • http://oliverwillis.com Oliver

    Bennett: And you’re a whore. See how silly namecalling is?
    It’s a yawn because this ain’t something out of the norm for the media.

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    Oliver, you’re paid by David Brock to watchdog the media for anti-moonbat bias, and now you say your very job is a yawn? That would depend on how well you do it, obviously. Media transparency is a vital part of a successful democracy, and that’s why the CBS whitewash is anything but a yawn.

  • http://www.billingsnews.com David Crisp

    “Certainly in this one case the bloggers were right and the MSM got it wrong.”
    No, in this one case some bloggers were right, and a few people at one network got it wrong. There are no bad media, just bad journalism.

  • http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mtz206/ Michael Zimmer

    “There are no bad media, just bad journalism.”
    Very well said.

  • http://www.hspig.org Ron Wrght

    Dear Fellow Bloggers,
    Here’s a comment I’ve posted in several versions at sites on this topic. We need your help on a much larger story that the MSM is ignoring. Sorry if this drifts off this thread but it is directly related to the MSM failure to objectively report the news of the day:
    Do these folks actually get paid for all this smoozing and distorting the facts? Don’t they realize the important significance of the Blogos here to independently fact check what in the past has been the MSM’S sole perogative as to what the news is?
    Mapes and Rather were “outed” for running a story that was an attack piece on President Bush (doesn’t mater who you were rooting). They wanted to believe this so badly, they ignored all the red flags along the way. This is what makes con games so successful. The marks want to believe and lose their common sense. The only thing is that they got caught with their hands “red handed” in cookie jar and exposed their true motives.
    […]
    The important lesson is the emergence of a new medium of human thought that has the power to transcend political boundaries and filtering of editoral and congolomerate boardrooms. This medium is almost free and does not have to pander for readers and audiences by senstationalizing the news which inherently causes it to be out of proportion and perspective.
    […]
    Now here’s my challenge to the Blogos. Here’s a much bigger story that needs to be reported to the American people and let them decide what the is the truth and/or fiction.
    The MSM is sitting on this story and not reporting it because they are too scared to put their foot in the water. Go figure you’d think they would be all over this like flies on poop!
    THERE IS DIRECT FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT AN ADDITIVE IN THE DOD’s ANTHRAX VACCINE IS THE CAUSUL AGENT FOR GULF WAR SYNDROME.
    FURTHER THE DOD’S LIL SHOPPE OF HORRORS, ALONG WITH THE NIH, AND THE PHARMA INDUSTRY ARE RUNNING EXPERIMENTAL CLINICAL TRIALS ON OUR BRAVE MEN IN WOMEN IN UNIFORM WITHTOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
    In my book this is nothing more than premeditated murder. Oh well what do I know?
    OK bloggers go and prove me wrong. This could affect everyone of us in that the vaccines we depend upon to protect against real pathogens like “smallpox” will be compromise
    […]
    Read More at Roger’s Site:
    http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/01/the_big_pinnoch.php#c33632
    Ron Wright
    http://www.hspig.org

  • kat

    Is this the same as that direct evidence that proved that childhood vaccines caused autism?

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com oodja

    There’s no way the author of the allegedly forged documents was a Democrat. The D’s didn’t need any smoking gun from the paper trail to hang Bush by his shoddy service record, they just needed to keep hammering away like the Swift Boat people did to Kerry, facts or no facts. For a while, the Bush camp was actually starting to trip over its own lies, then Memogate stopped the questions cold dead.
    Dollars to donuts it was Karl Rove or some other Republican operative behind the forgery – a brilliant move if so, as it took Bush’s Vietnam service clean off the table for the rest of the campaign.
    “Aha! A bogus document, so clearly Bush served with distinction after all, despite the overwhelming evidence which still suggests the contrary.”
    Only in America.

  • kat

    oodja–do you read conspiracy theories or make them up. You democrats are a hoot. No wonder you still can’t accept that Bush won the election–you can’t accept truth or facts unless they are what you want them to be. Rather wanted the documents to be genuine so he believed they were. Sad! Only an idiot believes that the Democrats are not responsible for this mess–idiots like Kos and Co.

  • http://advancedbusinessblogging.com John-Paul Micek

    The fact is, the dirty little secret is out now. All journalism is opinion journalism. It always has been, only now everyone knows it.
    Just look at today’s news coverage. No one but Fox stayed with the story more than 60-seconds. Sure the hacks will be on Hannity, Orielly, and Matthews tonight trying to spin their way out of what went on today. Hmmmm… same story, dramatically different coverage time. What’s that say about bias?
    But it doesn’t really matter. More and more of the “average Joe” and “average Jane” are catching on.
    That’s what’s great about the blogosphere — you always know the opinion of the source. Facts still matter here too. As Jim treacher pointed out so accurately earlier. If a blogger is wrong they’ll be found out darn fast. And now that’s starting to bleed over into the mortar world.
    The other benefit to the blogosphere over MSM is that it’s a channel that finally allows a dialog. Not “preaching” from the pulpit of liberalism by talking heads posing as “unbiased commentators.”
    As Richard Bennet pointed out — “the blackout of Rathergate on the leftwing blogs continues: still nothing on Daily Kos, Atrios, Josh Marshall, Marc Cooper, Tapped, or Kevin Drum.”
    That’s a shame. I hope that those bloggers stand up and are proud of who they are an what they stand for. If they don’t, even their own subscribers will dump em like consumers are dumping the MSM.

  • http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mtz206/ Michael Zimmer

    The important lesson is the emergence of a new medium of human thought that has the power to transcend political boundaries and filtering of editoral and congolomerate boardrooms. This medium is almost free and does not have to pander for readers and audiences by senstationalizing the news which inherently causes it to be out of proportion and perspective.
    I have yet to see evidence that blogging is a new “medium of human thought” let alone that they have “transcended political boundaries.” These are great catch-phrases, but hold little meaning.
    Blogs are not free. One needs access to a computer, the Internet, usually must have mastered the English language, must know how to operate a computer and a mouse (this is not intuitive to many people), know where to find blogs, know how to evaluate blogs as to their trustworthiness, and so on.
    As for pandering to audiences, it remains to be seen whether the increased commercialization of blogging (BlogAds, etc) will impact their content.
    It’s much too soon to make these kind of claims for such a young technology.

  • http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mtz206/ Michael Zimmer

    The other benefit to the blogosphere over MSM is that it’s a channel that finally allows a dialog. Not “preaching” from the pulpit of liberalism by talking heads posing as “unbiased commentators.”
    As Richard Bennet pointed out — “the blackout of Rathergate on the leftwing blogs continues: still nothing on Daily Kos, Atrios, Josh Marshall, Marc Cooper, Tapped, or Kevin Drum.”
    The second paragraph refutes the first. Blogging is not de facto a dialog. A blogger decides what to write, what comments to allow, and how a “conversation” takes place. Hegemony over the conversation is alive and well in the blogosphere.

  • Andy Freeman

    > A *good* journalist at a major network could use these advantages to provide better information than the average blogger every day of the week.
    (1) Not all journalists are “good”.
    (2) The “good journalist” is not competing with the “average blogger”. She’s competing with subject matter experts on almost every subject, folks who are better at what they do than the folks at her disposal.

  • Dexter Westbrook

    The statement that Mr. Jarvis objects to, “bloggers with a conservative agenda,” is true. He may not like it, but it’s true.
    I don’t understand the blogger tendency to parade one’s beliefs, be they conservative or liberal, and then get in a snit when someone uses a description of those same beliefs in providing context about what they say. Powerline is conservative, Little Green Footballs is conservative, etc. That’s fine. That’s not to say they can’t get something right. Here, they did. But often the reactions to being described as “conservative” by someone else are so thin-skinned, they’re funny.
    What the Thornburgh-Boccardi report does is present evidence and let people make up their own minds about what it means. This is what so many people say they want their media to do. But when it’s done, you have folks saying, “WELL, WHY DIDN’T THEY SAY THE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED? WHY DIDN’T THEY SAY DAN RATHER IS AN ANTI-BUSH NUT JOB?” They want the conclusions drawn for them.
    Well, I believe the documents were forged, and I believe Dan Rather is biased against Bush. But I can’t prove either thesis. I can’t crack open Rather’s skull, I can’t peer into his heart and divine his true beliefs. Neither can anyone else. That’s why the report didn’t take that final step. It’s called not saying what you can’t prove. Referring to Powerline and LGF as conservative is easily proved. They say it themselves.
    Mr. Jarvis’ talk about “transparency” is, in many ways, a waste of time for the people from whom he wants transparency. The typical blogger M.O. is to assume they know where a reporter is coming from, whether they do or not. Witness the endless babbling about “MSM,” as if it is some monolith. So, what advantage is a reporter going to get out of any disclosure? None. Bloggers are going to assume what they want to about that person’s beliefs. It won’t matter how much “disclosure” he or she does.
    And Mr. Treacher: You, sir, are delusional if you think Blogdom is some great, noble fact-check machine in all circumstances. As often as not, it is just an echo chamber. Blogdom can spread lies with the best of them, and be just as resistant to correction.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Dexter: I am a liberal blogger and I criticized Rather and CBS on this. It took me awhile to join in, I’ll admit, but I became quite vocal myself — and not because of political ideology but because I objected to what Rather and CBS were doing to the credibility of journalism.

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    “And Mr. Treacher: You, sir, are delusional if you think Blogdom is some great, noble fact-check machine in all circumstances. As often as not, it is just an echo chamber.”
    Which is why your comment disagreeing with me has been deleted… right?

  • Jim C.

    “what the bloggers don’t consider in covering this story is that all news now moves faster than the speed of thought. these people did an inadequate job in a very frantic and competitive environmnet.”
    Over how many months was this story being investigated? What a lame excuse! They’re supposed to be The Journalists. If they can’t maintain standards, who should?
    “but mary and betsy have worked in news for many many years and their failure to ask the right questions in a timely fashion should not obscure their enormous contributions over the long haul.”
    Considering the egregiousness of the error, I disagree strenuously. And how many other contributions that were not scrutinized have had such mistakes?
    “at the end of the day these people are– like everyone else– just people.?”
    As above, if The Great Journalists make blatant errors like this, why are they so Great?
    David Crisp wrote: “No, in this one case some bloggers were right, and a few people at one network got it wrong. There are no bad media, just bad journalism.”
    Not quite. A few of the top people at one network got it egregiously wrong in the direction of their own political leanings. The media is composed of journalists. The quality of all of these jouralists is now in question.
    Oliver writes: “It’s a yawn because this ain’t something out of the norm for the media.”
    Oliver admits liberal bias is the norm! Thanks!
    Oliver again: “News org practices sloppy journalism: news at 11. Yawn. President pays off pundit to spew propaganda? That’s a real news story.”
    Is it really? Glad to hear it. “The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration” in distributing news segments promoting its policies,’ said Laurence Moskowitz, chairman and chief executive of Medialink, a major producer of promotional news segments.”
    “Democrats pay off Oliver Willis to condemn Republicans and ignore similar Democratic practices.” Nothing out of the norm for Oliver.

  • http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mtz206/ Michael Zimmer

    Dexter: I am a liberal blogger and I criticized Rather and CBS on this. It took me awhile to join in, I’ll admit, but I became quite vocal myself — and not because of political ideology but because I objected to what Rather and CBS were doing to the credibility of journalism.
    The report says “mostly” by conservative bloggers. While you can object to their accounting methods to come up with that adjective, they didn’t say “only” conservative bloggers. They didn’t exclude you.

  • dries

    oodja-thanks for making me chuckle. make sure to look under your bed before to go to your well deserved sleep.
    so it was rove who set rather up? and that grizzled veteran fell for it like a columbia journalism major?

  • Brad

    Bloggers with a conservative agenda? You damned right and it is foolish to suggest otherwise. Have those memos YET been proven to be forged? For sure the CBS crew was inexcusably sloppy and Jeff you are right that the “aftermath” was the most damaging, but all of the blogger self congratulations is pretty lame when one considers the litany of lies from our sitting president who apparently just got elected. Blogger agenda? More so than most MSM I think. Here for instance it is Jeff’s incredible ego and puffing for the blogger world as well as a curious apparently anti Muslim crusade. All this carrying on about Rather is pale in comparison to the BIG ISSUES … which of course is JUST what was intended.

  • Angus Jung

    “For sure the CBS crew was inexcusably sloppy”
    About what?

  • h0mi

    Have those memos YET been proven to be forged?

    There’s no proof they are authentic.

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    The memos have been proved to be forged by all the typography experts who’ve examined them, including this one.
    And the significance of the smear on “bloggers with conservative agendas” is that it isn’t the agenda that matters as long as the truth is respected, and in this case the bloggers – all who cared about the story – did more justice to truth than Rather did.
    And that’s a fact no matter who you voted for on November 2nd.

  • Brad

    “The memos have been proved to be forged by all the typography experts who’ve examined them”
    I don’t think that is true. They have SPECULATED that they were forged. I have seen NO proof.
    “There’s no proof they are authentic.”
    I agree but there IS background information that is consistent and some that is not. Mixed bag.
    “For sure the CBS crew was inexcusably sloppy”
    “About what?”
    By NOT presenting the case that the documents MIGHT have been forged, which apparently they knew was the position of some experts. Tsk tsk.
    “as long as the truth is respected, and in this case the bloggers – all who cared about the story – did more justice to truth than Rather did.”
    Hmmm. I dunno. The bloggers’ agenda was to scream “phony documents”. Rather’s agenda seemed to be to scream “untold story”.
    I think you have a problem saying bloggers were more motivated by truth, REGARDLESS of who you voted for.

  • Angus Jung

    “By NOT presenting the case that the documents MIGHT have been forged, which apparently they knew was the position of some experts.”
    Yeah, right! You want to look at this and tell me that memo isn’t 100% authentic? “Experts.” Get real.

  • http://www.familygreenberg.com/ Brian Greenberg

    (2) The “good journalist” is not competing with the “average blogger”. She’s competing with subject matter experts on almost every subject, folks who are better at what they do than the folks at her disposal.
    And why aren’t the subject matter experts at her disposal?
    It’s axiomatic that anything bloggers can discover, journalists can discover. Bloggers have an advantage in sheer numbers and real-time communication. Journalists have an advantage in funding, access, and (in most cases) time, since what they do is their full-time job.
    I’m not saying a blogger can’t outperform a journalist (even a good jouranlist). I’m just saying let’s ease up on the whole “MSM is dead and the blogs are the only source of news in the universe” mantra…

  • http://www.familygreenberg.com/ Brian Greenberg

    “as long as the truth is respected, and in this case the bloggers – all who cared about the story – did more justice to truth than Rather did.”
    Hmmm. I dunno. The bloggers’ agenda was to scream “phony documents”. Rather’s agenda seemed to be to scream “untold story”.
    Rather (and others) had been screaming “untold story” for many months, and were even getting some traction. The documents were the “proof” that the untold story was true.
    As for proof that they’re false, isn’t CBS’ admission (and Rather’s apology) proof enough? Basically, we’re down to nobody that believes the documents are true, right?