digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at crooksandliars.com

CBS Busted Violating its own Standards to Help McCain

crooksandliars.com — CBS probably violated its own rules (Standards and Practice) by altering the video of Katie Couric ’s interview with McCain that left out his major blunder on this issue and then broadcast it on our airwaves. CBS should not paste together separate answers from different questions to make it appear like an answer was fluid.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • darthsand, on 07/23/2008, -9/+120its about time CBS gets busted!
    • didiman, on 07/24/2008, -33/+6lol CBS helping McCain, that's one of the funniest things i've heard in a while. What's next? Maybe Obama's three press secretaries (couric, gibson, and williams) are for McCain too?
    • thcobbs, on 07/24/2008, -25/+5Submission Headline: "CBS Busted Violating its own Standards to Help McCain"

      First sentence of description: "CBS probably violated its own rules"

      Buried for being propaganda and contradicting itself in less than THREE SENTENCES

      • CryRightardCry, on 07/24/2008, -6/+15Plus you'd rather no one focus on this anyway.
        As a matter of fact, if you could just make the entire country forget about ethical behavior until after the election, that would be great.
        Still haven't enlisted?
        Don't you get sick of being a cowardly piece of ***** warmongering from your couch?
      • thcobbs, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2No logical arguments... Check.

        Appeal to emotion... Check.

        Ad hominin.... check.


        Ability to actually win an argument.....
    • Globel, on 07/24/2008, -22/+2FoX is the only good news station out there..........
    • zer0nix, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5-for something other than a titty, or fake medical records reported on by dan rathers, yes!

      ...actually, i'd much rather that this never happened at all, but since it did, i'm not about to let THIS one slide.
    • RansomDenton, on 07/24/2008, -3/+16And I thought the media was the Liberal Media???
      Its funny, but it's actually getting fairly difficult to find this Liberal Media people so often speak about.
      The big O and DG are the only ones that spring to mind and without cable the big O is null.
    • schneid4323, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Go after CNN
      • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Show us the link of an edited interview, and we will.
    • gandhii, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5Until someone is in jail... don't give me this ***** about them getting "busted".
    • czeman, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Oh Jesus Christ! This wouldn't even have been news (let alone made it to the FP) had they done it for Obama.
    • SeymourC, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0"I watch CBS and I See BS"
      -Nasir
  • NoDrama, on 07/23/2008, -10/+171They want/need the campaign to appear to be a close contest. Anything else undermines their profits since they'll sell fewer ads. Being nice to the underdog isn't necessarily good journalism, but it makes sense from a business perspective. http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/conflict ... Follow the money, people. Use your brains...
    • dBass, on 07/24/2008, -0/+20Special protection under the Constitution of the United States of America should not be used for this kind of *****.
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3***** like this is why we need the Fairness Doctrine reenacted.
      • Terr01, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Nah, just enforce the antitrust stuff and bring back the mass-ownership restrictions.

        The Fairness Doctrine is too difficult to reliably enforce anyway.
    • Netwatcher, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6While its true the daily cable news shows, creates false narratives (to gin up stories), or under reports some facts (to bury some stories), actually changing the record is usually the role of propagandists, not muckrakers. This is the kind of behavior were used to seeing from lying drama queen like Fox Noise, not from CBS.


      That said this looks like only the act of couple of individuals at CBS (Kattie Couric and her producer*), rather then an overall methodology at the network. Even so CBS will have to keep a lid on this sort of hackery, to keep from becoming a laughing stock.


      • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Katie Couric already makes CBS a laughing stock.
    • schrankage, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3It was to cover Katie's ass. She didn't challenge him on his answer and correct his mistake, probably because she herself didn't know the correct timeline. So to prevent furor about her not challenging his lie, they edited his answer.
    • holesome, on 07/24/2008, -5/+0word, NoDrama
  • actorboy, on 07/24/2008, -42/+5Article Headline: "CBS violates its own Standards and Practice by altering transcript and video of McCain interview"

    Copy: "However, CBS probably violated its own rules (Standards and Practice)..."

    Which is it, they violated them or *probably* violated them? No digg.
    • actorboy, on 07/24/2008, -9/+12"Quick! Digg him down! He's commenting on the standards and practices of a story on standards and practices!"


    • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -0/+12MSNBC asked them for comment and they said it violated their policies that they were "not happy about it - but mistakes happen". So this story notwithstanding - they DID violate their own standards.
  • dBass, on 07/24/2008, -11/+94Miss Katie Cutesy and her cohorts have been propagandizing since the primaries. That didn't work.

    Even with a 2 month head start and both he and Clinton trying to slime Obama, McCain is still behind in the polls consistently and we all know what happened to Clinton. McCain is even running behind in some former 'red states' too. So now, both McCain, CBS, et al are getting desperate and moving into "***** it" mode.

    Gee, where have we seen that before?
    • MastDane, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Lol at "***** it" mode.

      Love it.
    • JHB800, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2Seriously? A whole bunch of polls released today show Mccain leading in critical swing states, gaining on Obama in others, and reducing Obama's overall lead to 1%. Right now its a statistical tie, and Obama has only lost ground in the past month or so.

      What this election is going to come down to is whether people want to take a risk on Obama, and as another poll released today showed, 55% of Americans think that he is a far riskier choice. (take that for whatever it means, but it does show that people may be worried about what Obama would do)
    • blitz718, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1***** thing sucks
  • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -23/+18Katie is a CFR member. nuff said.
    • MacEnvy, on 07/24/2008, -11/+26Actually, that's not quite "nuff said". Do you have a specific allegation? Any evidence to present that the CFR has ever done anything bad or even vaguely conspiratorial?

      I'm tired of people thinking that using the word "CFR" somehow makes them more knowledgeable than anyone else. The Council on Foreign Relations is a group of leaders who discuss world issues to promote common goals and a stronger, more unified world populace - what the hell is wrong with that?

      Unless you've got something specific to say about the CFR, you're no better than the 9/11 Truthers who think they've got it all figured out too.
      • trackerbishop, on 07/24/2008, -16/+5CFR = Rockerfeller group = admitted goal is to create a 1 world govt and have everyone wearing an RFID chip

      • Kerrigore, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8They are trying to research trees... that makes them hippies! And probably communists!

        Wait, we are talking about the Center for Forest Research, right?
      • EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7"admitted goal is to create a 1 world govt and have everyone wearing an RFID chip"

        Please provide a link to said admission. We'll wait.
    • sultanica, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7CFR: crispy fried retards?
      • Kerrigore, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Campaign finance reform? Code of Federal Regulations? Canadian Finals Rodeo?
    • bicyclethief, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Cooties For Republicans
    • MacintoshSauce, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1CFR: Council For (American) Retards
  • beyondu, on 07/24/2008, -7/+44I don't see how anyone who has worked in a news room or news program for 6 months let alone years could make editing mistakes like they did. John McCain might claim the media is against him, but that's totally wrong and this is just one sign of proof.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/24/2008, -18/+4They may not be smearing him, but they're not propping him up as the second coming of Jesus Christ, either.
      • MrHateMan, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12grow up...
      • diggduggDOOM, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8Did I miss some leper-curing or water-walking coverage somewhere?
      • insomniac8400, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Who said Obama was jesus? If it was fox news, that definitely doesn't count. They are the one news network that barely covers obama and instead runs really pointless interviews with mccain and commentaries with Karl Rove most likely broadcasting from dubai.
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9Editing "mistakes"? This was no mistake.
  • rewinn, on 07/24/2008, -9/+60Who owns CBS?

    Do they profit from the war?
    • staunchcentrist, on 07/24/2008, -0/+41All media organizations profit from war.
    • noahsawyer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+20Viacom, the same people who initially wanted every youtube user's IP address.
    • JrtD, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10Investment management company AllianceBerstein L.P. is the largest shareholder in CBS (13.9% ownership) [ SOURCE: http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Holding=5%25 ... ]

      Sumner Redstone is a billionaire who owns less that half that much (6.5%) -- but he is the Chairman of CBS. He and Leslie Moonves (Chief Executive of CBS) probably have more influence than anyone else on what we see on CBS.

      CBS majority owner AllianceBerstein manages more than $700 billion in assets. Since a French insurer (AXA) owns more than half of AllianceBerstein, it looks like a French company may be the bigger owner of CBS -- indirectly anyway. Yet, I doubt the French are behind CBS' unethical edit of McCain's interview. It would be interesting, though, to find out what those $700 billion in assets are (I give up -- I've spend too much time online today trying to track it down).



      • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Don't know why you're being dugg down for facts.

        Unless someone just wants them to be hidden.
      • virtualball, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3You better hope Leslie Moonves and Sumner Redstone don't read random Digg comments that indirectly affect them!
    • chkdg8, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3It used to be Westinghouse but as of the mid to late nineties, it was Viacom until they split in 2005. Now it's simply CBS Corporation Headed by Leslie Moonves. But the top dude who owns most of all corporate shares is Sumner Redstone.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -21/+9And yet, when they blatantly lied about certain documents a few years ago the left defended it.
    • MacEnvy, on 07/24/2008, -3/+23The funny part? They didn't need to use forged documents. There's plenty of evidence, including witnesses who were in the military at the time, who will vouch for the fact that Bush DID technically go AWOL.

      That little nugget of truth must be a real kick in the ass for you guys. No wonder you never mention it.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -17/+2Like I said... the left defended it.
      • zer0nix, on 07/24/2008, -3/+11rathers had no idea the papers were forged; that evidence came up later.

        what's happening here is less forgivable.
      • laserdog, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4"Like I said... the left defended it."

        So that makes it okay for you to defend this?

        Just because hypocrites exist doesn't mean CBS is free and clear here.
    • writeman, on 07/24/2008, -2/+16Nobody defended anyone about lying. When the left defended CBS's report, they defended the underlying TRUTH beneath the report about Bush's lack of service -- which was ignored in the wake of the manufactured scandal over the documents. Which, of course, was exactly what the right wanted.

      Then CBS turned around and basically fired Dan Rather. Which is also what the right wanted.

      So tell me how that even comes close to being the same as editing a news report to create a lie?
      • EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3What seems incriminating to me is that when the memo surfaced it was released without comment by the Bush administration. If they knew the allegations were false it seems likely to me they would have made strong denials. That they said nothing tends to make me believe that while the memo was faked the claims were probably true, especially as it is consistent with other accounts we have of his service.

        You could argue they knew the memo would be proved a forgery and thus discredit the media, but that seems like a stretch to me. If you had evidence a claim against you was false wouldn't you want to prove them false as soon as possible?
      • Inquisition, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1@EtherGnat
        That's why Rove is so good at what he does. I've always thought that he was responsible for the "leaked" document.
    • lhbaker, on 07/24/2008, -4/+8Can you show me some evidence that either the documents, or the contents of those documents were falsified? I'll keep checking back, but I won't hold my breath. I'll also be curious to see how many times I get buried by people who can't prove this accusation.

      That said, your charge that CBS blatantly lied is a blatant lie.
      • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5I'm a liberal-leaning guy and even *I* know the documents were forgeries - you don't have to go far for documentation (see below). It isn't that the STORY isn't true - it's that the DOCUMENTS were fakes and CBS failed to properly verify their authenticity which sucks since it made the actual story disappear under the scandal.

        The memos were allegedly created in the early 70s which lead to these interesting findings:

        The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.

        The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.

        The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.

        The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

        The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/Story?id=1 ...
      • OrigamiRonin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3I may *suspect* that the documents are forgeries, but I wasn't aware that anyone had proven that they were. I think it was only determined that they were *likely* forgeries as they used some technologies that weren't commonly used yet, but the tech did exist at the time. In all likelihood it will never be proven one way or the other. Unfortunately the claim that they were proven to be forgeries has pretty much become accepted as truth.

        Either way, CBS should never have used them. They couldn't verify the source and their own hired experts were split on the legitimacy of the documents. Having the documents come into question pretty much led to the entire story being ignored.
    • nekama, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately, there's going to have to be more proof than someone with an ax to grind and a closed circle community to boot.

      Thankfully Digg banned them into a nice corner where they can't easily be found.
  • ruddy, on 07/24/2008, -10/+10he seemed kinda fluent in both, except in the second one he had a shaky beginning. idk if i would nail CBS too hard
    • mbraynard, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Oh my friend. You have made a terrible mistake of attempting to be intellectually honest here in the land of The Messiah. I will petition for your sentence of death to be quick and painless.
  • sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -21/+43Liberal media strikes again!

    I just love that their response is "mistakes happen! oopsies!" Yet when they were given some falsified documents about Bush's military service, they were ripped to shreds. Now, they deliberately fix McCain's answers to cover his mistakes and nothing from the rest of the media.
    • wonderbriefs, on 07/24/2008, -6/+12That would be on the side of the conservatives, not the liberals.
      But it's so much fun yelling things you hear other people yell, isn't it?
      • monkeystick, on 07/24/2008, -0/+18Pretty sure that was sarcasm.. Although in 2008, its hard to tell anymore.
      • sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+15Okay, I understand sarcasm is kinda hard to detect on the internet, but if you read the following paragraph, isn't it kinda obvious?
      • wonderbriefs, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Yeah, I thought you were actually that confused about the terms liberal and conservative. I should have gotten the sarcasm, sometimes its hard to tell the difference between sarcasm or someone who really is that dumb.
      • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0That's why the /sarc tag got added to the HTML standard
      • saveafrica, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3yep you can't make the difference between sarcasm and conservative's stupidity nowadays. Good point though!
    • homercles337, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4The documents were not falsified, they were copies. That should not have invalidated them in any way. I think you are listening to too much talk radio and faux news.
    • brainboy77, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2the only liberal news media is msnbc. conservative media spans throughout all major network stations.
      • sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5MSNBC is NOT liberal. I love how they're suddenly the liberal news network simply because they employ the outspoken Keith Olbermann. Watch their news coverage, it's generally pretty conservative.
      • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4You mean the media outlet owned by G.E.?

        Proud member of the military-industrial complex?

        Those liberals. tsk tsk.
      • TheSenator624, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1sugarazor: What about Chris "Obama makes my leg tingle" Matthews? That's conservative news punditry?
      • sugarazor, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Senator -

        First off, I said watch their news coverage. Hardball isn't news, but I'll concede the point anyway since Matthews is a Democrat. That said, have you watched his show lately? He's pretty much done nothing but outline how Obama will lose the election.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/24/2008, -21/+23FTA: "CBS probably violated its own rules..."

    Oooh, probably! Either they did or they didn't. Talk about half-ass journalism. At least look up their Standards and Practices and find out one way or another. Probably? Give me a freaking break.
    • MrHateMan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+25here ya go... they did look them up... from another C and L article...
      "CBS NEWS STANDARDS….SEC111-5….EDITING"

      "Editing is essential to the practice of journalism. We must make every effort to ensure that our editing reflects fairly, honestly and without distortion what was seen and heard by our reporters and recorded by our cameras and microphones. The editing process requires careful news judgments geared to the individual facts of each situation.

      Interviews are to be edited in a straightforward manner, preserving the sense of the interview. Even a short sound bite should accurately reflect the spirit of the entire interview. An answer may not be taken out of context if the result is to distort the original meaning. If a question to an interview subject is used, the answer must be to that specific question. The question and the answer may be edited, but not in a way that would distort the meaning of either. Answers to different questions may not be combined to give the impression of one continuous response. In short, we cannot create an answer merely because we wish the subject had said it better.

      In the editing of an interview, cutaway shots may be used (see Section II-3 for shooting cutaways in the field). But the cutaways must not distort what actually occurred. The correspondent may register appropriate visual expressions, such as smiling at a joke. In all cases, however, the correspondent must be careful that casual expressions do not convey approval or disapproval of what is being said."
      • ldkronos, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7And for those who haven't the patience to read the whole thing, here's the really important part:

        "Answers to different questions may not be combined to give the impression of one continuous response"

        Yet they did that, combining answers to questions 1 & 3 and presenting them as the answer to question 3.
    • insomniac8400, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1But some people say....
    • gmiley, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2You either violate the rules, or you don't... you arrogant punk!
  • barf1, on 07/24/2008, -27/+9So it's like a Michael Moore 'documentary' then.
    • heliox, on 07/24/2008, -15/+5The difference is CBS didn't make ***** up. They just edited out stuff.
  • sockpuppets, on 07/24/2008, -4/+69Is there an ounce of integrity left in the MSM today?
    • pintomp3, on 07/24/2008, -2/+18integrity is often in direct conflict with profits.
    • cashmonkey, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Not in the American media that's for sure.
    • JHB800, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2No. Just look at the sycophantic coverage of Obama's trip.
      • Inquisition, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I think that the coverage is so high because McCaine basically dared Obama to go there claiming that he was ever so much better at foreign affairs. Also, this is Obama's first trip; which also makes it newsworthy.
  • gzappia, on 07/24/2008, -12/+42CBS can help him all they want.. you'd have to be a complete retard to elect this guy anyways

    *thinks*

    *****, America is full of retards so we might find ourselves in a whole heap of trouble..
    • seaofcheese, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8We did elect bush a 1st time.
      • str1fe, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2The first time wasn't so bad, but once we saw how bad he was doing we shouldn't have re-elected him.
    • lepht, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I'm with you guys. But assuming everyone is retarded will not help. You'll turn the people who /are/ paying attention to an elitist group with little influence.
      • Inquisition, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2"You'll turn the people who /are/ paying attention to an elitist group with little influence."

        I'm here too, but I think you just described 90% of Digg's users.
  • infodoc1, on 07/24/2008, -8/+11These "news" editors should be tried as criminals... if spreading mass disinformation to the populace isn't treasonous than I don't know what is.
    • neveroddoreven, on 07/24/2008, -5/+8are you serious? Tried as criminals .. Treason... wow if you had your way a lot of people would be dead. You're standards for treason scare me.
    • Dibou, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6Olbermann would have been dead looooong ago.
      Most of MSNBC would be dead.
      ALL of huffington would be gone.

      As always you have left-wingers demanding those that don't agree with them be silenced by force.
      What should happen is everyone should be allowed to say what they please and let the ideas stand on their merits.
    • HerbertWest, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1It's no mistake that freedom of speech and the press is in the 1st amendment of the bill of rights.

      There was nothing of any interest in either what they broadcast or the unedited version. I'd heard it all before.
      It looked like they were editing it for time.

      Not everyone is a criminal that needs to be brought up on charges.
    • czeman, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Whatever. The mainstream media hasn't really been showcasing all the moments where Obama ***** up, so don't give us that *****.
  • JaXaL, on 07/24/2008, -4/+5I mean, what are you going to do? So what if a news station has distorted the truth. its not as if people will be up in arms about. They will probably blog it and ... well yea thats about it.

    LOL
  • AddiX, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11of course it was a mistake, theres no way they edited tape on purpose.

    Now if we can only find a way to get of that scumbag Scarborough. This is one of the few TV stations I know who has an anchor who pretends to be a dem/independent but always is in favor of speaking out for the ring wing. Not only that, but he had to balls to attack Olbermann for talking about this "mistake."
    • FlaG8r, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Scarborough served in Congress as a Republican. I don't think he pretends to be anything but a Republican.
    • bababoosh, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Scarborough has never pretended to be a Dem, he mentions his service as a Rep Congressman almost every morning. Have you ever actually watched him? Idiot
  • meddle447, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEcQ1BYCsVY
  • Treoinmypocket, on 07/24/2008, -21/+7What? You think this doesn't happen everyday?

    I defy you to analyze Olberman's reports over the course of one month and not find the same *****.
    • MrHateMan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8I defy you to analyze Olberman's reports over the course of one month and find the same *****....

      Not saying that you wont. But when you spout out accusations the burden of proof is on you.
      • funmerlin, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1This post is useless without evidence
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2I issued a challenge.

        The burden of proof is not upon me.
    • bababoosh, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2"I issued a challenge.

      The burden of proof is not upon me."

      -how convenient for you. I defy you to prove your accusation. There, now it is on you.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2ok. Since I respect the english language and the required comprehension....and you HAVE, in fact, placed the burden on me here two of many:

        1) Olbermann's favorite target in Bill O'reilly (he'll still be attacking him after Bush is gone):

        SO here's Keith completely flipping the truth of what happened.

        Scroll down to where the transcript and video are. For the record, I am not a follower of this site it just came up first in a google search. Also, I don't watch Olbermann because he does stuff like this so often I got tired of trying to vet the truth in his broadcast. And yes, I rarely watch O'Reilly for similar reasons.

        http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/ryy238555399. ...

        2) Here's another of Keith attacking Fox's Brit Hume. Keith takes an unrelated quote form a panel discussion about a different topic, portrays it as about another issue and from Hume's nightly broadcast, then proceeds to slam Hume over it. Reality is shown below the lie/manipulation:

        http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/ ...
      • bababoosh, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Thanks. I'll digg because you can actually produce a semblance of evidence for you claim. Though I will take these blogs with about as much of a grain of salt that I take KO. Like him, and BO, they quite obviously have an agenda and that is an automatic red flag. Also there was a picture of sean hannity on the header for one of those sites, I though I was going to loose my cereal...
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1babboosh.

        There is not grain of salt required when you are reading actual transcripts and watching actual broadcasts. I specifically avoided site that didn't have anything more than bombastic opinion - the 'net and the mainstream media are both too full of that nonsense which is why I made my origianal comment in the first place

        As soon as I found real factual and unfiltered supporting evidence I posted it.

        So lets not equivocate.
      • bababoosh, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Hey now Treo

        The grain of salt comment was in regards to the idea, purported by the blog, that Olberman was "flat out" lying. I would be willing to venture that KO simply didn't read or listen to the story and reported on hearsay (which in and of itself is a big problem, and one not entirely out of character for someone like BO either.) I doubt, considering how easy it is to refute them these days, that either of them would knowingly lie and are both so emotionally charged in their disdain for each other that they pounce on any story or report that even "hints" of the wrong doing or stupidity of the other.

        Remaining skeptical as to the KO's supposed intentions alleged by Johnny Dollar is not an equivocation. It's is something I do whenever I come across allegations made by a person, place or thing with an obvious agenda (including but not limited to Keith Olberman, Bill O'Reilly and Johnny Dollar...) The facts of transcripts are there and irrefutable, so I'll not refute them. However, Your quickness to label me as deceitful, or uncommitted to my convictions suggests either defensiveness or an agenda of your own. So please don't go there.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Baboosh

        Agreed. Without reservation. The blog post's agenda was irrelevant to me. I only used it because it was the first source that contained the whole of the context for each issue and contained the original source material.

        Wouldn't it be nice if other diggers could disagree and then hear each other out as nicely as you and I have?
  • Skywise, on 07/24/2008, -12/+7Is this anything like CBS not talking about John Edwards' love tryst?
    • JHW539, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12Not really. Who John Edwards, a private citizen holding no public office, has been boning is just slightly less important than McCain, a sitting Senator and presidential candidate being shown to have a fundamentally incorrect grasp of the largest foreign policy challenge our country faces today (or McCain really is a George Bush clone and is just blatantly lying).

      How disconnected from reality do you have to be to even entertain the thought that news about Edward's love life should be on par with news about a Senator's demonstrated poor grasp of critical policy facts?
      • Skywise, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1When he's a potential VP candidate... I think that's important information.

        Of course, I can understand that you would want to downplay Obama's poor grasp of his own elected political office and committees he's on but I don't think you should be dissing him.

      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3@skySTUPID

        Are Edwards actions, knowledge or general grasp of reality about his PERSONAL relationship likely to impact on the world if he becomes VP or even President? I think not.

        Are McCains lack of understanding and grasp of reality about the area he claims to be POLITICALLY strongest, ie. Foreign Relations likely to impact on the world if he becomes President? Obviously.

        Wake up. If John McCain puts on lingerie & carries a whip when he's in the bedroom with the missus, nobody needs to know, but if he wants to start another war because he doesn't understand the issues at hand, HUGE problem!
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0OMG LOLZ!!!111
      They should, like, totally have more, like, Paris Hilton news too!
  • SOS84, on 07/24/2008, -10/+21McCain has changed positions and lied so many times in his shameful attempt at pandering to the anti-American evangelical and neo-conservative cabal he can't even keep his stories straight.
    • executorzz, on 07/24/2008, -9/+1Really? I thought it was because he was trying to pander to democrats that he's changed position on some issues.
    • JHB800, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2And Obama hasn't? Both of them can rightfully be called flip-floppers.
    • jevaun, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Agreed. No one seems to be talking about the slew of blatant public contradictions that mccain makes on a near daily basis. the man isn't fit to be dogcatcher, let alone president.
  • TherealObadiah, on 07/24/2008, -17/+3Oh, puleeze! What would surprise me is if CBS hasn't already called Florida for Obama!

    This article patently demonstrates that Liberals are overwhelmingly intolerant of anything other than non-stop fawning media coverage. It is common knowledge that the main-stream media has done everything in their power to advocate and boost Obama. Five network anchors traveling with the guy?? The NYTimes puffing Obama every day. Come on.
    • funmerlin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7How is editing out McCain's mistake boosting Obama?
  • rhart23, on 07/24/2008, -6/+18quote:
    Contact CBS and demand they a) explain themselves on this egregious action. b) to hold those accountable.

    evening@cbsnews.com http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews/main34 ...

    • czeman, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Do the same for all the other news outlets that are hiding Obama's *****-ups.
  • sonnybobiche, on 07/24/2008, -11/+3I watched the interview online this morning on CBS's own website and that part of his response was not edited out. I don't know where this article's author got his copy of the tape, but the CBS official version is unedited, I assure you.
    • funmerlin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7The version that aired on TV is edited. The website version is not.
    • JrtD, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I watched it on CBS' news show last night, and McCain's response WAS edited out with a different response inserted instead.
    • FlaG8r, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7The version they aired was edited. Of course the website has the unedited version now that the ***** has hit the fan.
  • executorzz, on 07/24/2008, -14/+2Give me a break about the MSM being harder on Obama.

    Remember the supposed breaking news editorial by the new york times about McCain's possible affair with that lobbyist? If that's not hitting below the belt I don't know what is. They put an *editorial on the front page of the newspaper.
    • funmerlin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Both are instances of bad journalism. Why does that wrong negate this one?
  • ljw5021, on 07/24/2008, -17/+1McCain is the only real canidate this fall. Obama has embarassed himself enough with his ridiculous ideas and questionable history.

    If Obama wins I might just up and leave the country, because anyone with common sense will realize it will go to *****.
    • organik, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9Oh for the love of all that is holy - please do leave, and take your knuckledragger friends with you. McCain is going to get us all killed! His lack of knowledge on middle eastern affairs, and reluctance to embrace clean renewable energy in favor of more drilling are the two things that will endanger us far more than whether Obama wears a flag pin or not. Oh, and I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim. Freedom of religion, remember?
    • mbelleghem, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1You're awesome.
    • Stap1eGun, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Perhaps if you are trying to change people's opinions, you should offer reasons instead a juvenile rant.
    • tehsilentcircus, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Better start packing your bags. And while your at it, take all the others like you along with you. America will be better off that way. You will not be missed.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3I'll just assume you were born after 2001. You could not have seen first hand what Bush's (and by extension McCain's) policies have already done for us.
    • defwheezer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!
  • organik, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3The news media isn't hard on either of them. They sold us this war, remember? They exist for the profits of their corporate masters, nothing else. They only report what they think people want to see, or news that benefits their bottom line. McCain will get a break because he'll keep the war machine in full swing, Obama gets a break because he'll probably do the same thing - and more people want to hear about him, being our first black president and all. Corporate Media = Corporate Government = Fascism
    • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1McCain is getting the soft treatment right now to keep his approval as close to 50% as possible.

      That way, when he wins by 1%, there will be fewer people yelling about fixed elections.
  • bf1871, on 07/24/2008, -12/+2OMG!!!! you mean CBS did for McCain what every other main stream media outlet does for NOBAMA every broadcast!!!! quick get on the Lib-mergency line and call the the speaker......the Obamabots will not stand for this. He is after all the Mesiah and should not be campaigned against nor spoken to with any ill-will......get a life Obama is not the answer for this country. Grow up and start seeing things the RIGHT way.
    • kasjogren, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Call the waaaaaahbulance for this guy.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Thanks a lot....I just felt my IQ dip 20 points as a result of having read your post.
      • shauncorleone, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1This poses a greater question: Can a liberal survive with an IQ of 11?
      • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Come back when you can use Schroedinger's Equation to find wave functions of given particles. Then we'll see who has an IQ of 11.
    • insomniac8400, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Pick up a mirror and say that ***** so that you can see yourself saying it. I have a feeling you won't ever want to say something so stupid again.
  • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -5/+4ALL American news is bubblegum journalism. It is the best comedy show on Satellite usually, and they buy it which is even more comical.
  • keithmfoster, on 07/24/2008, -2/+9Countdown with Keith Olberman was slamming CBS about the "missing" segment last night. Also brought up was how McCain's group was back pedaling trying to find ways to forget that this ever happened.
    • insomniac8400, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Not back pedaling, they were lying.
    • JHB800, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2Yeah, Olbermann lost all credibility when he told a bald-faced lie on air when any idiot with YouTube could have shown him that he was wrong. Thats what happens when you repeat stuff off of left-wing blogs without actually seeing if its true.
  • cgi5877, on 07/24/2008, -8/+9Umm, yeah..sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but I'm a film/video editor and this type of ***** happens all the time. NEVER believe what you see/hear on TV, especially Reality (fake) shows and the News. Read some ***** newspapers and mags for your news--TV news is like fast food--and if you don't know that already, well, then, consider yourself informed.
    • diemunkiesdie, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Oh I see, so while video can be edited, text is is uneditable!?! You do realize that the majority of newspapers and magazines are owned by the same organizations as the TV Networks?
      • cgi5877, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Print media, in my view, is the lesser of 2 evils. You are much more likely to get in-depth analysis in print than with a 10 second soundbyte on the air. Plus, if one paper only prints a partial quote, chances are another paper publishes the whole thing. Much better than a one on one with a tv personality where they get the questions beforehand and edit however they please.
    • azAZ09, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2NPR is the best alternative to TV or Print.
  • Cyrock, on 07/24/2008, -5/+1so CBS is becoming The Daily Show minus the funny, and minus the speech blunders? Do Not Want!
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Bad analogy. The Daily Show is a reputable news source.
      • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2That's the worst part of it.

        That a COMEDY show has better, and more insightful news coverage than the "news networks".

        But the jester is the one that can tell the truth without being killed.
  • OriginalLucid1, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6This has to be false, CBS doesn't have standards.
  • JointVenture, on 07/24/2008, -18/+4Do Crooks and Liars have tea with RAWSTORY every day?

    They seem to ***** each other in the mouth a lot.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2Right after they ***** your mom in the mouth.
      • JointVenture, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1I was born of a Jackal.

        Im Obama's step brother.
  • life036, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Why the ***** are they BLINKING so much!? I mean, that ***** is just weird.
    • bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Study up on body language. You'll understand why.
    • life036, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Ahh, interesting... I suspected something dubious was going on :)
  • h3smith, on 07/24/2008, -9/+3So, you slam CBS over this, but you don't comment at all ever on the raging boner that the entire MSM has for Obama...

    Yeah, good job.
  • viciousjohn, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6Ever since 2004 election when CBS canned Dan Rather they have been in pocket for the GOP. Is it any wonder they continue to do their masters bidding? CBS is giving FOX a run for their money with more right wing propaganda. This hit piece from Couric is simply the latest example of "journalism" from poor old CBS. They won't be around in another 5 years, not as a national broadcast media outlet anyway.
    • JHB800, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Are you ***** retaded. Rather was fired because he aired a story that was an outright lie (and proven to be a lie) and he refused to acknowledge it. Had he apologized and admitted the error, he would have been allowed to stay.
  • hmphargh, on 07/24/2008, -6/+5I'm surprised the huffpost didnt get this one first...
  • ko773, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2I can't even remember the last time I watched CBS
  • donniesd, on 07/24/2008, -4/+4And fox differs from this how?
  • Lucas123, on 07/24/2008, -6/+4According to this latest poll, the media is bias toward Obama. So this doesn't wash.



    • OrigamiRonin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+11 - Where is this poll?
      2 - How does a poll constitute any kind of proof?
      • TheSenator624, on 07/25/2008, -0/+41 - Rasmussen: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politic ...
        "The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month.

        "As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain."

        2 - Polls, if conducted properly, do give a good idea of what people believe. I chose to excerpt the "unaffiliated voter" stat here because obviously Democrats aren't going to see bias and Republicans are. But even with a large margin of error, there's a still large percentage of unaffiliated voters who see a pro-Obama bias.

        If you honestly don't believe that polls are good for anything, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. But remember that sentiment in November if the Exit Polls show that Obama has a huge lead but ends up losing the election. If polls don't matter, then exit polls can't be used as proof of election tampering.
      • OrigamiRonin, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the link Senator. I'm totally with you on the idea that polls can be useful, I just don't think that they necessarily stand as proof of anything. It's a measurement of perception, not necessarily of fact. Have two cars drive past a crowd at the exact same speed and most people would think that the loud red car was faster than the quiet white car. This perception doesn't make it so.

        All of the vagaries of covering two presidential candidates may give some people the impression that one side is being favored over the other, but the perception does not make it so. Lucas did not state that the polls indicated "people feel as if...", he stated the results of the poll as if it were proof of fact, and then held that false proof up as proof that the story being discussed was false. I'm not saying the poll in question is wrong or useless, just that it doesn't support Lucas' conclusion.

        I don't think a comparison to exit polls is really useful in this case because an exit poll isn't so much a measure of perception as it is an attempt to get a statistically significant measurement of what people actually did. The people you are questioning just participated in a poll (the election) and you are trying to gauge the results before official numbers are released.

        Thanks for the feedback.
      • TheSenator624, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3You're welcome. ^_^

        Regardless of whether the media actually is in the tank for one candidate, this Rasmussen poll suggests that a lot of voters think they are. That may not be bad for the candidates, but it's certainly bad for the media since it claims to take a neutral position. Pro-Obama comments from Olbermann and Chris Matthews don't allay the fears of a liberal media bias, either.

        The Pew Research Center recently released a study that measured the media exposure of each candidate. Last week, they found that "Obama was a significant presence in 83% of campaign stories studied, vs. McCain in 52%. (To be a significant presence in a story, 25% of the story must be about that person.)" (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/907/war-coverage-obama ...

        All of these things can be used to suggest media favoritism toward Obama. It could also mean that Obama is simply the more interesting candidate or the one whose face will sell more magazines or get higher ratings. (I mean, let's not pretend that Obama isn't the prettier of the two candidates. Plus, Obama's younger supporters are probably more likely to have disposable income that they can throw down on magazines where he's featured on the cover.)

        If the media wants to support a candidate, fine; that's not terribly fair to the public, but as both candidates are receiving nearly-equal coverage, I suppose it would be a little more acceptable. (It would be worse if our media was government-run... "fair" doesn't really come into play since our media's main goal as private business ventures is to make money.) The media's role as "objective informer" would be completely obliterated though, and that's a huge problem for us. We need objective news sources and coverage, not a return to yellow journalism. I think a lot of people believe that the media is trying to have it both ways by trying to support a candidate and still asserting their objectivity, and they find that insulting to their intelligence. If the media loses its consumers, which is happening with several newspapers, it'll go bankrupt, and if nothing else, that Rasmussen poll provides a possible explanation for the loss in sales and consumers.

        I tend to be skeptical of exit polls and the "who are you going to vote for?" type of polls, especially during this election. People tend to paint a prettier picture of themselves in polls, and in an election where the first African-American or first female nominee was originally an option, people really took to choosing the candidate they felt would make them look better.
  • anandpopat, on 07/24/2008, -9/+1Media helping McCain??? WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!
    OMG, this is so ridiculous, Digg failed to produce any article about the media bias towards Obama.
    Liberal Media... if they show anything where McCain looks good it violates rules, if they produce anything where Obama is not smiling or shaking hands, it violates rules. Liberals...
  • PosedMagnet, on 07/24/2008, -10/+5BUH-BUH-BUH THE PRESS IS LIBERALLY BIAS!!!!
  • eddywin, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7This is why they are trying to destroy the internet, so they can get away with doing something like this. They only show you what you are allowed to see, only tell you what you're allowed to see, they tell you what to think, it's all about control. The internet is freedom.
  • FairDinkumMate, on 07/24/2008, -3/+13@actorboy, vexingmodstwo, Lucas123, h3smith, JointVenture, PolishLogic, jabberwolf & ALL OTHER RIGHT WINGERS!

    Can one of you, just one, instead of complaining about how the MSM do the same tfor Obama, how bad the source is, how everyone loves Obama, how everybody makes stuff up or whatever it else you want to use to obfuscate the point today, just post a FACT.

    Just one example of any TV News outlet editing Obama's comments in a similar fashion so as to not show him in a bad light. For all of the crap you guys write here, one little example shouldn't be hard, should it?

    Maybe when you go to johnmccain.com to let them know where you made your posts so you get paid, you can ask somebody there for a FACTUAL example!
    • TheSenator624, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3Re: "how everyone loves Obama"

      Rasmussen: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politic ...
      "The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month.

      "As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain."

      Further, Olbermann's opinion change about the Fascist nature of FISA after Obama voted for it speaks to the sentiment that many in the MSM are supporting Obama unconditionally, even at the expense of their own ideals: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/ ...
  • RabidAngel, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5People actually still watch the MSM? How quaint.
  • arvvvs, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4There was a theory that keith olbermann, unknowlingly presented:
    Did they not realize wat a loser mccain was and how much he lied.
  • brokencrystal, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2Wish they would have busted some of the MSM for what they did to Ron Paul!
  • SpamBurger, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3All his brain cells are belong to Bush.
  • rlbond86, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2I urge all Diggers to complain to CBS about this breach of journalistic integrity:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_for ...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.