What is Digg?245 Comments
- hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -33/+135No WAY!!??!?! Next the media is gonna break the news that an election was stolen by the neocons. Breaking news: War in Iraq goes bad, Breaking news: Bush on vacation again. Man these guys are pushing the envelope of journalism. What will they come up with next./sarcasm
- reeder, on 10/10/2007, -18/+88Corporate consolidation is the single greatest enemy of Democracy.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+53So much for the left-wing media bias
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -17/+55There's a lot of misinformation going around.
First, the documents were NEVER CONFIRMED as false. George W. Bush did not once say they were false and in fact never commented on Dan Rather's findings. The Fox News researchers said, and I quote, the documents were "most likely" false because their claim that the font did not exist yet was actually inaccurate and there were typewriters that created the font at the time in production.
Second, it is hard to fact-check the documents when the originals were ADMITTEDLY burned by the National Guard.
So, to conclude, the facts behind it were not only most likely true and confirmed but George W. Bush never once tried to contest them, the documents were never confirmed as false either and it is quite possible that they were not forgeries, and the original documents were no longer in existence because the military DESTROYED them for some undisclosed reason.
Somehow, with any critical eye, you have to at least think it possible that the same network that spearheaded the Rather attack, Fox News, and still pushes lies about the Iraq War MAY be pushing even more lies down your throat. - mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -11/+44Go read the filing in his lawsuit against CBS/Viacom and a slew of Executives.
Rather was told by his boss, to not continue checking the article, as his boss would take responsibility for it.
It's fascinating reading about getting stabbed in the back by the guys in Corporate, as they try to suck-up to the Bush Administration. - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+36screw teflon don, bush is the real deal. he was an alcoholic and had a dwi, used cocaine, and managed to weasel out of serving his country and none of it became an issue in the corporate media during his elections.
- jaymzdean, on 10/10/2007, -18/+44No *****?
GW was AWOL?
Goddamn, tell me something I didn't know.
Dugg. - Zeonix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27I totally agree, but I've come across a lot of people who will digg someone down because they're too stupid to understand whether or not the statement is laced with sarcasm unless it has a sarasm tag.
- colto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25I wouldn't say the biggest enemy, but definitely a big one. The biggest enemy to democracy is the apathy of the people. If the people don't care about what is going on in their government, the government itself is doomed. "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." - Robert Maynard Hutchins
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -11/+30I'm sure glad that people can still join the National Guard in order to avoid serving in combat.
- smkelly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20CBS being hesitant to tell the truth? No way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Brown_and_ ... - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Nope. AWOL is when you're gone for up to 30 days. GW was gone for over a year. He deserted.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26The Washington Post took a known authentic document signed by Killian from the time period, and one of the CBS documents. Compare these two, side by side:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/ ...
An untrained monkey can see the vast differences between these two documents. The CBS documents are unquestionably fake.
Give it a rest already. - jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19What about the consolidation of power into the hands of a few government leaders?
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Letting rich people hide behind corporate immunity is a big part of it. Ditch the whole "corporation as person" fiction, and we can start holding the crooks accountable.
LOL, like that's gonna happen. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -14/+27When the rich wage wars its the poor that die
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14he wasn't referring to all national guard members, just the one who joined to avoid going overseas and then didn't even bother to perform that service.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19Actually, the Fox News researchers said they were, and I quote, "Most likely" forgeries. They were not confirmed as forgeries by any researcher YET, EVER, NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Furthermore, there were no original documents to compare them to because the originals were burned by the documenter in the National Guard for unknown reasons. - chase001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Or how about a corporation can be tried and sued for anything an individual can? They get all the benefits of being an individual and few of the responsibilities.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -10/+19Rather was told by his boss to discontinue the fact checking because a CBS-hired private investigator was taking over the fact checking. This was AFTER the story was already aired, which means that the fact-checking was happening too late. I agree that further investigation is warranted, but you investigate, then report, not the other way around. That's why Rather and Mapes were fired.
Look at it this way: Even if Rather was right, he was lucky he was right since he didn't have his facts checked before the story was aired.
As for the merits of him being railroaded: Maybe he was. Maybe others deserved blame, too. It doesn't mean that Rather didn't act unethically in airing the story he had at the time. - kirstpo, on 10/10/2007, -11/+20The memos were never ever proved to be inauthentic, at the same time they were never completely proved to be authentic. However the information contained in the memos accurately match up with other investigations and witness testimonies. Rather should continue fighting this battle.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Did you even look at the pics. The fake memos were typed in a word processor, rather than a typewriter. There is proportional spacing in the letters, superscripts, and the signature doesnt even look the same.
- sunchild, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Yeah, and a typewriter just HAPPENED to produce a document that has identical spacing and fonts to a default MS Word document. You people are so delusional, it's pathetic. This Digg experiment in groupthink is proving more of a failure by the minute.
- bamapachyderm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"Fake but accurate!"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14It's not up to people to prove them false. It's up to the people presenting them to prove them real. You have it backwards. Unless you want to prove to me that Aliens are false, or God is false or that purple ass licking hose snorting aliens from Jupiter are false. HAH. It's up to people claiming that ***** is real to prove they are real. NOT the other way around.
- DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -9/+17So if they haven't been proven to be false, they *must* be true? *rolls eyes*
- HisTumness, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Thank you, Charlotte! I'm really starting to lose my faith in the Digg community! Listen, I LOATHE Bush. Absolutely LOATHE. But you give all liberals a bad name when you blindly jump on to this ***** without looking for the facts! Salon says "no credible source" has refuted the documents' authenticity? They're full of *****! Here's another very thorough explanation to why the document 100% CANNOT have come from the 70s:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archi ...
Here are some more, one by an *expert* typographer:
http://hftp.blogspot.com/2004/09/60-minutes-docume ...
http://qando.net/archives/004070.htm
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm
Did Bush weasel his way out of military duty? Almost certainly! Is this document obviously fake to anyone who knows anything about typography? Absolutely! - digbird, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Funny, I seem to remember that if you accuse someone of something (in this case, Bush malingering during the Vietnam era) that the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Yet a few people on this board seem to have turned that on its head. For them, the burden of proof is on the party accused (in this case, Bush). It's up to Bush to prove the documents are false. In other words, he's guilty until proven innocent.
I wonder how people with that mindset would feel if it was used against them?
Frankly, I think the whole issue of what happened back 35 years ago is ridiculous. It wasn't important in considering whether Clinton should have been President (the nation elected him twice). And the nation elected Bush twice. As far as I'm concerned, unless it's Jane Fonda running for President, the statute of limitations has run out on things that happened back then.
Please note: I am not a fan of Bush. But there are a lot more important things to be mad about at him than this. Frankly, people who work themselves into rage over something like this look like obsessed cranks. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14Yeah, and Saddam had WMD...
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Shhh.
They want to forget the text analysis showed it was typed with Word.
Let them have their little lapses in logic. They want to believe. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11So because they were never completely prove true they *must* be false? Funny how that works when it comes to defending a con...
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I didn't say anything about politics. I just said they didn't do their job. For all I know, they just wanted to break the big story. I don't really care what their motivations were.
If Fox News people did the same thing, they should be fired too. I too damn tired of all this yellow, tabloid-style journalism. From all sides. - seafoodmama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Obviously there are still a great number of unknowns in the Bush/Guard situation but part of me was glad Rather got the boot. To be honest it has nothing to do with Rather so I am probably being unfair but personally I am sick of those in the media who take rumors, gossip and false claims and completely destroy someones life and then walk on as if they were not responsible. I should probably not be glad because it does appear that Rather is the scapegoat in this instance but I still can't help feeling that we need more bad journalist balls broken over the crap they spew because it is "sensational."
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16Corners were cut because his facts weren't checked and corroborated. When incriminating documents surface decades after the fact, during an election, and only after Bush had been president for years, you need to verify them. Rather and Mapes didn't.
Maybe the panel were a bunch of weasels. Maybe Rather took the fall for other people. That doesn't change the fact that Rather didn't verify the story he ran, which is really the primary job of a reporter. It's not unfair to Rather and Mapes because no matter what else happened, they screwed up. - jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8The timing of the surfacing of the evidence should be reason enough to be skeptical. The accuser also had a history of problems with the National Guard. And several people contradict parts of his story. And he decided to burn the original copies of the documents for some reason. At the bare minimum, all of that should give you good reason to at least report the possibility that the documents aren't completely verified yet.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02 ...
Regarding the signature (singular). From Wikipedia, "Killian documents authenticity issues":
"Of the documents, only the May 4 memo bears a full signature. CBS stated that document examiner Marcel Matley had determined the signature was authentic. However, Matley told the Washington Post on September 14, 'There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them' because they are copies far removed from the original source. Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, expressed the 'limited opinion' that Killian did not sign or initial the documents."
At the risk of repeating myself, claiming that a fact is true when you haven't authenticated it is a big problem when you're a reporter. The documents aren't considered true until proven false. They're considered not usable in a news story until proven true. If you don't trust your document-checker, you can get more opinions. If there is a conspiracy, congratulations, you're story is a lot bigger than you thought. - opticwind, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7This is totally irrelevant to Dan Rather's "resignation". The REASON he was fired was not because of the unproven authentication of the documents, it's that Rather never even looked into the matter. He took these pages and assumed they were true. I don't care if you hate Bush or love him, when a journalist ignores his responsibility to investigate the accuracy of a document before claiming it as fact he deserves to be fired.
- JohnDakota, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Look, if Rather's can explain how his 30 year old documents have MS world margins and spacing from typewriters that were not capable of that spacing then I'll give whatever evidence he has consideration. Until then they're fake, and no matter how many digg or Rather's stories saying to the contrary come up, they're still fake.
- obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Hold on, this is frying my brain, and making blood squirt from my eyes.....Dan Rather/CBS admitted the papers were forged. So now a forged document is a real document?!?!?
Come on, you moveon.org people are going a little far on this one......
Please try to keep your lies believable...
You really need to get a grip, the Dems can't impeach, and don't want to end the war. - BlueNine, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14At the time, a TON of messages and articles were posted which asserted that the documents were forged. I can remember spending a fair amount of time giving such assertions due consideration... reviewing the so called evidence that they were forged. I eventually came to the conclusion that the evidence of forgery was itself rather questionable, but given the sheer volume with which the claims of forgery were made, alot of people were likely to buy into the idea.
I for one hope the case goes forward and a more thorough and objective investigation is conducted, particularly now that things have cooled down a bit. Hopefully, people will dispense with what they think they know and keep their minds open to the results of such an investigation as well as the underlying charges. - Identity4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Apathy is the glove in which evil slips its hand." -Professor Ted McDoogle from Van Wilder
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Gosh you sound so sure of yourself, and that diggbats stab at the end really nails the point home. The only groups claiming the documents were fake were free republic and the white house, and they never offered any evidence, which they easily could have if Bush actually did show up. You are a sad kool aid drinker.
- guzziguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Salon+Hillary Clinton's personal Attorney Sidney Blumenthal = Slanted BULL BLEEP.
WASTE OF TIME. - jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Nope. Bears.
- johnrohan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The old "fake but accurate" defense
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Salon says 'no credible source' has refuted the documents' authenticity"
How does this constitute proof? Maybe in your anti-Bush kangaroo court. But in the Real World, there is generally an assumption of innocence and you have to prove guilt. You're suggesting the Bush is guilty a priori and needs to prove his innocence.
First off, we're talking about events that happened THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO. How well do you remember events that happened thrtity-five years ago that didn't directly affect you?
Secondly, the one person who can authoritatively dispute the authenticity of the documents, Jerry Killian, happens to be dead. Maybe that's why the forgerer thought that this was a great opportunity.
Third, I've heard the "fake documents, factual story" already, and I think it's total *****. Why? If the forgerer was simply a transcriber of the original documents (as is claimed), then why did he try to forge the signature and pass of the documents as authentic? The forgerer is already proven to be a liar based on what I just said. So, in all fairness, it's up to the forgerer to prove the veracity of his claims. - bamapachyderm, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Yes, they most certainly have. You obviously are in deep denial.
- Orihara, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Innuendo, lies, and propaganda. Seems about par for the course from that author. Not that it's surprising at all.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10The secretary claimed she didn't type the alleged document that was the main source for their case. He should have gotten his ducks in a row, instead of presenting a flawed case.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6"It's not up to people to prove them false. It's up to the people presenting them to prove them real."
You mean the way it was up to the Bush administration to prove that Saddam REALLY had WMD??? - Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'd personally like fact checking on every piece of physical evidence. The media is full of too much ***** that they'll report anything for ratings. Look at Fox News, ABC, CBS, etc., along with all these blogs like Rawstory and Dailykos. If they're going to go after someone over something, then they better have the evidence to back up every single claim they make.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 242 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 