Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 33 minutes ago, william.scherk said: In any event, Sheriff Joe is finished. The Posse is finished. Not one charge was recommended officially. The case goes nowhere. William, In other words, just like with man-made climate change, the science is settled. (Add gestures of emphasis like thumping the foot, stressing the "set" in settled, using a deep voice, etc. Wagging finger is optional, but it might help stop folks from looking further...) May I suggest passing along your certainty to the FBI? You could probably save them some effort. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: May I suggest passing along your certainty to the FBI? You could probably save them some effort. And may I suggest using Mr. Dan Rather as the media spokesman for any outcome that may arise? He's now teaching a Udemy course on journalistic integrity (info from NBC): Dan Rather teaching ‘Truth in the News’ course If you hurry, you can still get it for 10 bucks. I wonder if he's going to give some tips on Microsoft Word, too... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And may I suggest using Mr. Dan Rather as the media spokesman for any outcome that may arise? He's now teaching a Udemy course on journalistic integrity (info from NBC): Dan Rather teaching ‘Truth in the News’ course If you hurry, you can still get it for 10 bucks. I wonder if he's going to give some tips on Microsoft Word, too... Michael Michael, Thats damn funny! Rather is doing a show called "The Big Interview" where he brings out his hip side talking to Keith Urban et al. The guy is as stoic and bland as they come proving that its not just anyone who can rub elbows with top entertainers and come off as cool. Ill bet he could scrub a rug in the dance hall of his youth but who cares! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: In any event, Sheriff Joe is finished. The Posse is finished. Not one charge was recommended officially. The case goes nowhere. In other words, just like with man-made climate change, the science is settled. I don't know about you folks, but an 'in other words' can introduce an utterly wrong reading of the source it tries to explain. But let's set that aside and see if there is any particular shoal of disagreement. I will assume that except for this quote, Michael agrees with all my other main and subsidiary points. In other words, in other words, no case was proven, no documents were filed or distributed to media, no public 'report' was made, no legal representations were implied by the no-questions conference. Sheriff Joe is finished? Joe Arpaio the former sheriff may have more than a few years left in him. I meant, he can no longer use the power of office. He isn't a sheriff anymore. Agreed. The Posse is finished? Well, exactly. This feeble representation last month was the last act of this ex-officio body. It is dissolved. It never had the authority of office, it never issued a single motion or applied to any court. Agreed. No official charge in any jurisdiction whatsoever? Agreed. The case goes nowhere? Here we might disagree but what is the strongest counter-argument that it will go somewhere? Please? I mean, if the case has gone nowhere up until now, where else would the freaking thing go, then -- in the foreseeable future? As I wrote, some nitwit may try to entice someone (like Paul Ryan?) in leadership to give him a chance, to give him some power to command a committee room or issue a notice to appear at some fucking Birther Hearings. That enticement will be somehow greater than at any other freaking time in the past five years that Joe & Co have been peddling bullshit? Give me a break. I figure that Maestro agrees with this too. To the somehow-contingent snarl of issues dealt with in other conversations, "Man-Made Climate Change." Er, what is the claim here: that my approach to figuring out where the real disagreements lie (on the spectrum of alarmism/catastrophism .... to GHE dragonslayer) is somehow crippled epistemologically, thus that my attempts to seek knowledge are crippled in trying to figure out who is bullshitting who with regard to Joe and Co and the misleading video? I note in passing, but with some chagrin, that The Eye Above gives us nothing in re further analyses of the video, leastwise his own. He gives no sign he's applied renewed attention, made a second gathering of information, approaches the end of a Second Look. It is instead Waggy Williamy crippled attempts at knowledge to the obverse. One up. One down. One top dog, and the couldabeen contenders. Which makes OL a joy to belong to. Anyway, I did imagine an audience beyond The Eye, and so here include some bons mots from other cripples: alg December 30, 2016 at 9:15 am (Quote) [link] # What should be most noteworthy about the “final press conference” isn’t the content, but the fact that the MCSO website and official Facebook page says nothing about it – not even on the news release page. That’s because Sheriff Arpaio wasn’t representing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. He was representing himself. The final presser was not an official event of the MCSO, but a private affair conducted in a classroom/auditorium at the training center that can be used by other private organizations. It should not be lost on anyone that, at no time during the so-called birther certificate “investigation” did Sheriff Joe use his substantial statutory and constitutional authority as the Maricopa County Sheriff. He never arrested anyone, never sought warrants, never pursued subpoenas and never referred charges for prosecution. That’s because he knows the whole thing was horse hockey from the very beginning. He chose to have a handful of wannabe cop goofballs make believe investigate the thing because he knew it would have been improper for him to devote the true weight of his office to this nonsense. For any of you birthers still wishfully thinking, the so-called Cold Case Posse had no authority to investigate anything. It’s a private, non-profit organization, not a law enforcement agency. And, it now no longer exists – it’s been purged from the posse rosters even as Arpaio is still in office. It’s website has been missing in action for a couple of months now. For the record, during Mr. Obama’s 8 year term of office not a single local, state or federal law enforcement agency found cause to “investigate” the President’s birth certificate. Not one, not even the MCSO. The only court cases filed were civil matters filed by private individuals and virtually all of the 226 court decisions were in favor of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, including 35 actions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Rowr. Wag. Wag wag. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: (Add gestures of emphasis like thumping the foot, stressing the "set" in settled, using a deep voice, etc. Wagging finger is optional, but it might help stop folks from looking further...) May I suggest passing along your certainty to the FBI? Insert gestures of 'you have the right of way' to the other person immobile in the intersection. The FBI question is bizarre. If I am wagging my finger it is at hasty conclusions and bullshit-peddling -- which details you are not dealing with here. I am only certain that I gave the video some basic tests and that I worked diligently to find and follow the debates immediately following the not-a-press-conference. I assert that The Case Is Dead. I gave warrants for that opinion. If you have a counter-opinion, perhaps The Case Is Alive! -- well hell, Michael, give us that opinion and its warrants -- using the example of the end of the Posse and its final quasi-public act (if not the no-questions-taken aspect, or the no-report-published aspect). What brings the FBI in? Nothing and nobody, as far as I can wager. Except for The Eye. I invite a response not to any Waggy Finger Man and his Alarming Certainty, but to the video claims. It takes time to ponder, but it is not torture. Don't you have your own skeptical filters engaged, suspecting now that the video contains some very iffy cough cough evidence? I mean, I am not saying, "Maestro lost down rabbithole," I am just wondering if by wagging at SettledScienceWilliamWagfinger you are missing some of the agreeable things in my last comment. Finally, alarmingly, I look at this: wag wagging the wag "help stop folks from looking further..." ??? I actually urge everyone to do their own analysis. In other words, Look Further. ***************** I will open a Flag Alert in my incoming news tide. When the birther whoopee is raised in connection with an actual something happening with either the FBI or Congress, I will again underline the lack of a case in this thread, referencing this post. Peter, your birther suspicions contain 40% more X than Brant's musings about the Cuban connection. They are on the outskirts or fringe of the neighbourhood of reason. And that is my nasty comment for the month. Just because I know three people appreciate my effort to de-mystify the Posse's conclusion here, a strong effort from elsewhere, from the story cited above. By now, the diligent will have already clicked through to this corner of the vast internet, but not everyone is diligent or gives a fuck. These are very large resident images, so you will have to click through and click again to examine the full detail. Please continue Looking Further, Ye Righteous Randians,Ye Objectivish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Welcome, William Scherk, to the FBI training facility at Quantico. Are you ready to begin? Sir, yes I am! I have been ready my whole life. Good job, you hoser. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 14 hours ago, william.scherk said: What brings the FBI in? Nothing and nobody, as far as I can wager. Except for The Eye. William, I can't go into what I know about, er... creative document handling... in public. I don't know if you realize it, but we are discussing crime. I think fondly of Brazil and I know your thirst for gotcha is great, but... well... Satisfy yourself. There. I don't know what you are going to do when the FBI ends up looking at the original document (if a case is not already open). I do know I'm a piker compared to those guys and they have to see what I do. (spooky organ chord: The Eye Sees! ) As to your question, I'm pretty sure Trump will tell the Department of Justice to look into it to put the issue to rest. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it... As to all your effort dissecting a digital copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, with other digital copies of copies (etc.) of other documents thrown in for good measure, and sundry videos and blog posts of it all, knock yourself out. This reminds me of the joke about a drunk at night looking for his car keys under a street light. When a passerby asks him where he thinks he dropped the keys, the drunk points to a dark alley. The passerby asks why he's looking under the streetlight and the drunk says the light is better there. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: As to your question, I'm pretty sure Trump will tell the Department of Justice to look into it to put the issue to rest. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it... Like I said earlier, I don't think this will be a priority for the early days. First, Trump is going to put the overall intelligence community house in order to get the politicking out. From the WSJ yesterday: Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency Ain't it a comfort when things like this roll along without instruction from mainstream media manipulation and all that hollering? btw - Aren't you interested in Dan Rather spearheading the media's efforts in The Fautless Conclusive Infallible Ultimate Unimpeachable Debunking of The Yay-hoo Low-Information Posse? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, william.scherk said: I mean, I am not saying, "Maestro lost down rabbithole," I am just wondering if by wagging at SettledScienceWilliamWagfinger you are missing some of the agreeable things in my last comment. William, LOL... By "the science is settled" comment, I was merely quoting the never-wrong President Obama. I can find quotes if you like. They're from the very same President Obama, The One Who's Identification Documents Are Never To Be Questioned On Pain Of Public Shaming By One's Betters. (Meanwhile, nobody gets to look at the originals. I bet the FBI will, though. ) btw - Has it occurred to you that Donald Trump is the genuine Birther in Chief? (That's not precise because he merely doubts the authenticity of the birth certificate, not if Obama was actually born in the US, but it sounds cool.) Imagine that... Birther in Chief was elected President of the United States. Hmmmmmm... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 It was 2007 when Obama should have been seriously vetted, but the left with its mainstream media had no interest. Instead a thoroughly unqualified man for the office was rammed down America's throat and the feckless Republicans couldn't/wouldn't stop him. It is doubtful that he met the constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. It no longer matters because on Jan. 20th he's gone. He's almost gone already. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, william.scherk said: William, Using this affair as a media distraction actually seems plausible to me. It's kind of like Trump's doctor, Dr. Harold Bornstein: Does anyone really think Trump goes to this man for the serious stuff? He threw it out and the media ate it up. And still does. Trump doesn't want the media anywhere near the folks who actually have to cut on him when necessary. I say it's quite plausible the fake birth certificate kerfuffle is similar. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, william.scherk said: I will open a Flag Alert in my incoming news tide. When the birther whoopee is raised in connection with an actual something happening with either the FBI or Congress, I will again underline the lack of a case in this thread, referencing this post. Birther whoopee and something actually happening -- in other words, some indication that there is an FBI investigation opened, or that Congress will resolve to examine President Obama's birth certification. 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I don't know what you are going to do when the FBI ends up looking at the original document (if a case is not already open). See above. If something happens in actuality with the Posse bullshit. But, in your imagination, something will happen or may already be happening -- criminal investigation. That's fine. What is weird is that you seem to cite your imagination as having an epistemic advantage over my assessment of the actual Posse 'case.' What makes my attention to the nuts and bolts inferior to your future sight? I don't get it. Quote I do know I'm a piker compared to those guys and they have to see what I do. (spooky organ chord: The Eye Sees! ) As to your question, I'm pretty sure Trump will tell the Department of Justice to look into it to put the issue to rest. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it... "[T]hey have to see what I do"? Why? You believe that Trump will tell the DOJ to take up the Posse 'case'? Or that somehow Trump will want to open an investigation on whether the long form document was 'forged.' I am bearing in mind that the Posse video did not convince you, that no case was proved to your satisfaction -- even while implying that the video influenced your "guess" of forgery. So I don't get why after 8 years of litigation failure and not one single charge being laid by any local, state or federal law enforcement -- after five years of Posse activity resulting in a lame and misleading video -- I don't get why after all this failure to make a case hang together, you believe Trump would attempt to make it do something now. Basically, my point of view is that the issue is at rest -- except among the conspiracy-minded. There is no criminal case to bring. Quote As to all your effort dissecting a digital copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, with other digital copies of copies (etc.) of other documents thrown in for good measure, and sundry videos and blog posts of it all, knock yourself out. No effort from you to support your "guess" that the long form document is a forgery? Here my puzzlement increases -- the video itself is the fuzziest of all the 'copies.' The video has least detail then to show us about the two documents in comparison because of compression losses -- so, we have to go to the better-quality documents provided: the Ah'Nee document copy via Jerome Corsi, and the scan of the long form birth certificate provided by the White House. So here your "digital copy of a copy of a copy of a copy" is wrong. That is arguably what the Posse video showed but that is not what the material I shared showed. At the start, parties -- including the Posse and its peekaboo experts -- will be dealing with the highest resolution 'original' scan available. But as an explication of forgery -- the video has the least quality. In other words, the freaking Proof itself is actually two steps removed -- once by the compression into a video to show at the not-a-press-conference, the second by its compression into the Youtube version. And remember that no documentation whatsoever accompanied the video. No hard copies of overlays. No description of provenance or methodology. No actual report from either expert consulted. No transparencies. Zip. Anyway, to return to my point that the all-seeing Eye hasn't put the claims to the test -- the claims embedded in the video. At the risk of over-repetition -- surely if an Eye is going to put the video to the test, we are going to seek the same elements -- the higher-quality-than-video images, the uncompressed-for-video actual documents in play (not a copy of a copy of a copy). And that the video then is the least reliable indicator that the nine points "match." That some folks might be fooled by the lower-resolution "Matching" in the video if they do not approach the claims with the root-stock higher resolution images. I hope that explains why I don't understand your 'guess' at forgery versus detailed refutation of the claims made. I don't understand why your imagination and guesswork overrules. You give no details, no indication that you have examined the claims yourself, and yet claim the epistemic high ground for The Eye. That is so bizarre to my Objectivish way of thinking about proof and evidence and critical reasoning. In other words, if an argument is made with a copy of a copy then the video argument is bullshit, in your Eye. Which should show that you agree with me that the video is not evidence of anything, let alone enough 'new' evidence to interest the DOJ or the FBI in a criminal investigation. Puzzles. Quote This reminds me of the joke about a drunk at night looking for his car keys under a street light. When a passerby asks him where he thinks he dropped the keys, the drunk points to a dark alley. The passerby asks why he's looking under the streetlight and the drunk says the light is better there. This reminds me of the joke about a drunk who is listening to a conversation in his head: "Hey, there are nine points of forgery." "Yah, and where are they?" "They are in this video." "Is the video convincing?" "What do you mean, convincing?" "As evidence." "What do you mean, evidence?" "Evidence of forgery." "In the video?" "Yes." "I'm too drunk to watch a video and think at the same time." It also reminds me of my recipe for Epistemic Fudge. Edited January 5, 2017 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 23 minutes ago, william.scherk said: "[T]hey have to see what I do"? Why? William, Probably because they are skilled for real? 23 minutes ago, william.scherk said: No effort from you to support your "guess" that the long form document is a forgery? In public? None whatsoever. I'm done with this topic. You can claim victory if you like. (You're still wrong, but what the hell. ) 23 minutes ago, william.scherk said: I don't get it. That's for sure. You are very good at making all kinds of assumptions, though. Enjoy them. And enjoy the sound of one hand clapping for now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Michael wrote: Imagine that... Birther in Chief was elected President of the United States. Maybe we should "Call The Midwife." What is a five letter word that means bringing prosperity and freedom to America, and the restoration of free market capitalism? I hope it is "trump." Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) On 1/4/2017 at 4:49 PM, The All-Seeing Eye of OL said: Dan Rather teaching ‘Truth in the News’ course If you hurry, you can still get it for 10 bucks. I recall, off the top of my head and so subject to false memory, that Dan Rather lost his job when he touted a document that was not authenticated. What was that document? Now I have to go look. ________________________ 3788 milliseconds later ... January 10, 2005, 6:48 PM CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story Quote Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush's National Guard service. The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a "rigid and blind" defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report. Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard's deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated. "We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy," said CBS President Leslie Moonves. The panel said a "myopic zeal" to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush's National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization's internal standards. The report said at least four factors that some observers described as a journalistic "Perfect Storm" had contributed to the decision to broadcast a piece that was seriously flawed. "The combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network's news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles," the report said. The piece was aired during a tight and hotly contested presidential race between Mr. Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry. The timing of the story prompted charges of political bias against CBS News. While the panel found that some actions taken by CBS News encouraged such suspicions, "the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content." The story, which aired last Sept. 8, relied on four documents allegedly written by one of Mr. Bush's Texas Air National Guard commanders in the early 1970s, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who is now dead. Questions about the authenticity of the documents were raised almost immediately. Some critics said the documents were most probably forgeries prepared on a modern word processer. Other critics questioned whether Killian would have - or could have - written them. The documents suggested that Mr. Bush disobeyed an order to appear for a physical exam, and that friends of the Bush family tried to "sugar coat" his Guard service. After a stubborn 12-day defense of the story, CBS News conceded that it could not confirm the authenticity of the documents and asked former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi to conduct an independent investigation into the matter. Their findings were contained in a 224-page report made public on Monday. While the panel said it was not prepared to brand the Killian documents as an outright forgery, it raised serious questions about their authenticity and the way CBS News handled them. The panel identified 10 serious defects in the preparation and reporting of the story that included failure to obtain clear authentication of the documents or to investigate the controversial background of the source of the purported documents, retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was also faulted for calling Joe Lockhart, a senior official in the John Kerry campaign, prior to the airing of the piece, and offering to put Burkett in touch with him. The panel called Mapes' action a "clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of political bias." The panel noted that the Guard segment was rushed on the air only three days after 60 Minutes Wednesday had obtained some of the documents from Burkett and that preparation of the piece was supervised by a new management team of executive producer Josh Howard and senior broadcast producer Mary Murphy. A key factor in the decision to broadcast the piece was a telephone conversation between Mapes and Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, Killian's commanding officer during the period in question. Mapes told the panel Hodges confirmed the content of the four documents after she read them to him over the phone. Hodges, however, denied doing so. He also told the panel he had given Mapes information that should have raised warning flags about the documents, including his belief that Killian had never ordered anyone, including Mr. Bush, to take a physical. Hodges said that when he finally saw the documents after the Sept. 8 broadcast, he concluded they were bogus and told Rather and Mapes of his opinion on Sept. 10. "This alleged confirmation by Major General Hodges started to march 60 Minutes Wednesday into dangerous and ultimately unsustainable territory: the notion that since the content of the documents was felt to be true, demonstrating the authenticity of the documents became less important." Mapes' telephone conversation with Hodges was part of a vetting process that the panel concluded was wholly inadequate, largely because it had to be done so quickly. The key executives vetting the piece were West, Howard, and Murphy. After rushing the piece to air, the panel said, CBS News compounded the error by blindly defending the story. In doing so, the news organization missed opportunities to set the record straight. "The panel finds that once serious questions were raised, the defense of the segment became more rigid and emphatic, and that virtually no attempt was made to determine whether the questions raised had merit," the report concluded. The panel believes a turning point came on Sept. 10, when CBS News President Andrew Heyward ordered West to review the opinions of document examiners who had seen the disputed documents and the confidential sources supporting the story. But no such investigation was undertaken at that time. "Had this directive been followed promptly, the panel does not believe that 60 Minutes Wednesday would have publicly defended the segment for another 10 days," the report said. The panel made a number of recommendations for changes, including: Appoint a senior Standards and Practices Executive, reporting directly to the President of CBS News, who would review all investigative reporting, use of confidential sources and authentication of documents. Personnel should feel comfortable going to this person confidentially and without fear of reprisal, with questions or concerns about particular reports. Foster an atmosphere in which competitive pressure is not allowed to prompt airing of reports before all investigation and vetting is done. Allow senior management to know the names of confidential sources as well as all relevant background about the person needed to make news judgments. Appoint a separate team, led by someone not involved in the original reporting, to look into any news report that is challenged. In a memo to CBS News staff sent Monday afternoon, Heywood said it was a "difficult and important" day for CBS News. "It is an important day because it represents a unique opportunity for all of us at CBS News to learn from the mistakes surrounding the flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday segment and reaffirm our commitment to the American public to practice journalism of the highest standard,'' Heywood said. CBS News anchor Dan Rather announced in November that he is stepping down as anchor of The CBS Evening News in March, on the 24th anniversary of his first broadcast as anchor. Rather will remain with CBS News as a correspondent for 60 Minutes Sunday and 60 Minutes Wednesday. © 2005 CBS. All rights reserved. Okay, so he didn't exactly lose his job, at least not completely, at least not in the sense of being terminated, as one of the four departing CBS executives/producers was terminated. But my memory is not entirely false -- he resigned as anchorman within a month of the brouhaha. -- so then, what do I want to know? Well, I want to know two things -- what kind of criticism is lodged against the course he offers, and does the course offer any lessons from Dan Rather about the Killian documents and the scandal at CBS. For the first question, I will have to do some digging of test holes: examples of the strongest criticism of Rather, or rather, the most interesting critical commentary. Going in, I will be looking for judgments: Rather is unqualified to offer any education on journalistic ethics because he helped perpetrate a journalistic scandal. Off to the course ... _______________ Back from the course "Dan Rather on Journalism & Finding the Truth in the News" ... where for only ten bucks you are promised some learning. Quote Learn to ask the right questions & tell captivating stories. Practical advice for journalists & avid news consumers. What Will I Learn? Analyze and investigate all news you consume and become more informed Tell a compelling story, both on paper and in person, that moves audiences and effectively conveys your point of view Produce sharp, concise writing that gets your message across and leaves the reader wanting more Effortlessly present in front of a crowd or in front of the camera with confidence Comprehend the power and necessity of the freedom of the press and its role in our lives That five-point Objective is pretty seductively written. Who wouldn't want to become more informed, to better one's analytical and investigative chops in dealing with news ... ? But I think I like the middle promises best: "leaves the reader wanting more." Yes! Tell a compelling story that effectively conveys your point of view! Yessir. And to produce sharp and concise writing? Well, that is a perfect challenge for me, who writes far too much. So, yes, I am going to fork out the fifteen bucks Canadian and join the 2700 other students. I am still reading through the public commentary under the MediaEqualizer story by Brian Maloney. Here is one that might be said to get its message across concisely: David Sontag · Acupuncture Physician at Dr. David Sontag, Acupuncture Physician How can someone with past of making up the news even begin to talk about the truth in the news ... recall rathergate? Like · Reply · 20 · Jan 4, 2017 3:40pm So, why pay the fifteen bucks? Believe the hype about learning to be a better news consumer, writer and communicator? Maybe. But also because Rather has a brief chapter in one of the sections, called "The Killian Documents." Now, back to the shovel to dig up some less concise arguments about Rather's "Stained Legacy." Which makes me think about the stain. Is the stain so big that it blots out everything Rather? For some folks, yeah. So, my mission is to find a concise, compelling story of why. I may or may not share, depending on our ability to crowdsource. From the section of interest: My Time in News & How Television News Changed America In this lecture, Dan discusses the rise of the internet as it related to journalism and his reporting on George W. Bush's military service. The Killian Documents 09:07 Tease ... Edited January 7, 2017 by william.scherk Go look. Did Dan lose his job? What is the course offered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Here's my conspiracy theory itch acting up again... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, william.scherk said: I recall, off the top of my head and so subject to false memory, that Dan Rather lost his job when he touted a document that was not authenticated. What was that document? Now I have to go look. William, Here (from Wikipedia): Killian documents controversy. There was a whole lot of nitpicking and bickering, but it boiled down to this. Dan Rather presented documents to bash Bush's past during the 2004 election. The documents were dated 1973. The originals were destroyed (with a due sob story as to why), but photocopies showed the documents in Times New Roman font, which was typical of Microsoft Word and other word processing programs in 2004 (on up to the present). In 1973, this font did not exist. And the Republicans screamed: Gotchaaaaaa!!! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 52 minutes ago, william.scherk said: Okay, so he didn't exactly lose his job, at least not completely, at least not in the sense of being terminated, as one of the four departing CBS executives/producers was terminated. But my memory is not entirely false -- he resigned as anchorman within a month of the brouhaha. William, Are you willing to accept this appearance as a replacement for the underlying reality? So Dan Rather merely retired? It had nothing to do with being a sleaze? Was Rather expecting to retire back then? He sure hasn't acted like it since. But tf you believe that, I've got a 100% guaranteed multi-level marketing opportunity for you along with an infallible chain letter that will bring you millions. Rather was fired in private and given a sword to fall on in public instead of being executed by another person in public. I believe insiders call this "controlling the narrative." (btw - Sorry about my intransigence on the other issue. I'm generally fine discussing most anything, but this one has personal meaning with consequences if I take it too far.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Off with his head, or at least the top of it. 3 hours ago, william.scherk said: 3 hours ago, william.scherk said: I recall, off the top of my head and so subject to false memory, that Dan Rather lost his job when he touted a document that was not authenticated. Okay, so he didn't exactly lose his job, at least not completely, at least not in the sense of being terminated, as one of the four departing CBS executives/producers was terminated. But my memory is not entirely false -- he resigned as anchorman within a month of the brouhaha. He wasn't immediately terminated, but his CBS career came to an end. Okay? Your top of head is safe. 3 hours ago, Quoting CBS, WSS said: Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush's National Guard service. The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a "rigid and blind" defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report. [...] Their findings were contained in a 224-page report made public on Monday. While the panel said it was not prepared to brand the Killian documents as an outright forgery, it raised serious questions about their authenticity and the way CBS News handled them. The panel identified 10 serious defects in the preparation and reporting of the story that included failure to obtain clear authentication of the documents or to investigate the controversial background of the source of the purported documents, retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. I don't know why this 2005 CBS story doesn't include a link to the "report of an independent panel," but it is easy to find. cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf I think Rather did pay the proportionate price for hasty and unwarranted reporting, and that he has since been kind of imprisoned by his own prior belief in the "truth" of the documents during the rush to produce a 'killer' report. I mean he now still believes that the 'story' in the iffy documents was true. That makes me think he was dictated his original apology, and that he didn't understand what that apology covered. So, ultimately, what I paid fifteen bucks for is a long time spent with a guy who doesn't understand his error -- who does not celebrate the fact-checking that stripped the original story of authority. That is key. Knowing when you are wrong. We don't maybe need bother with the rest of the Bush military service issue in detail, because the CBS own-goal and apology/retraction effectively let the air out of the story. It is kind of sad that Rather doesn't use the story as it happened to him as a Warning to Students. I haven't ever read any of his books so I don't know if some of his apologies and self-analysis are more Bart Simpson-like "I Didn't Do It." My curiosity is aroused about this bit of self-blindness, so I will probably track down his latter-day memoir and see how he skates. I really want to read the chapter "Don't Fuck Up Like I Did, Kids." Besides the relative failure of his section three, episode seventeen, I have no report on my Fifteen Bucks worth of Dan Rather talking. Not until I give myself a chance to glean some value. Two other holes already dug for me, from the New York Review of Books: The Flawed Report on Dan Rather James C. Goodale APRIL 7, 2005 ISSUE Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service by Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi January 5, 2005, 224 pp. ‘The Flawed Report on Dan Rather’: An Exchange Dick Thornburgh and Lou Boccardi, reply by James C. Goodale MAY 12, 2005 ISSUE In response to: The Flawed Report on Dan Rather from the April 7, 2005 issue -- this story from Texas Monthly in 2012 is pretty harsh on Rather's self-thwarting beliefs and biases and the defects of his further 'investigations,' but it also offers a look back at the larger story that died with Rather's career -- the Bush military service issue. Truth or Consequences Eight years ago, Dan Rather broadcast an explosive report on the air national guard service of president George W. Bush. It was supposed to be the legendary newsman’s finest hour. Instead, it blew up in his face, tarnishing his career forever and casting a dark cloud of doubt and suspicion over his reporting—and that of every other journalist on the case. This month, as rather returns with a new memoir, Joe Hagan finally gets to the bottom of the greatest untold story in modern Texas politics, with exclusive, never-before-seen details that shed fresh light on who was right, who was wrong, and what really happened. Edited January 7, 2017 by william.scherk Grrrammar and spelking, self-regard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Here is a refreshing anti-conspiracy effort. Judith Curry shrugged. Rather than debate a climate change conspiracy, she walked away. Now look at the political environment. We have a president who believes in a climate change conspiracy. There will be left in the government-funded field precious few luminaries who speak for critical thinking for real. They all sing a party line. What do you think is going to happen when Trump looks, all he sees is lockstep and the serious dissenters have left? Instead of running Curry out of academia, I believe the climate change cartel will rue the day they didn't make efforts to keep her. And I believe this will be a political regret, not a scientific one. Science-wise, they have no integrity left, so any scientific regret is not of much interest to the public. No one knows what's true or false when they speak. All they know is the climate change cartel wants more money and power and they want it now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here is a refreshing anti-conspiracy effort. Judith Curry shrugged. Rather than debate a climate change conspiracy, she walked away. Now look at the political environment. We have a president who believes in a climate change conspiracy. There will be left in the government-funded field precious few luminaries who speak for critical thinking for real. They all sing a party line. What do you think is going to happen when Trump looks, all he sees is lockstep and the serious dissenters have left? Instead of running Curry out of academia, I believe the climate change cartel will rue the day they didn't make efforts to keep her. And I believe this will be a political regret, not a scientific one. Science-wise, they have no integrity left, so any scientific regret is not of much interest to the public. No one knows what's true or false when they speak. All they know is the climate change cartel wants more money and power and they want it now. Michael I consider Dr. Curry a hero. In a way she is the logical negation of Dr. Robert Stadler in "Atlas Shrugged". She gave the finger to "the State Science Institute" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 For those who take solace in the mainstream media as at least being civil and rational and eschew people like Alex Jones as kooky conspiracy theorists, the following news was carried by most of the mainstream media, it made its way into the CIA, etc., etc., etc. And it has been circulating among folks in high power for a couple of months or more. For example, from the New York Daily News today: U.S. intelligence warned Trump about Russian 'perverted sexual acts' blackmail, report says Yet it was totally made up by the kids at 4Chan. The mainstream media and ruling class are so hungry for something to bash Trump with, they ran with Pissgate. Now everybody's backtracking, but it's too late. They screwed up big time. From Zero Hedge: 4Chan Claims To Have Fabricated Anti-Trump Report As A Hoax Does that qualify as a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media and ruling class? Or is it just plain old crude propaganda worthy of the old Soviet Union or a Scientology campaign? In other words, are the mainstream media and ruling class stupid or evil? There doesn't seem to be any other alternative in this case. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Let me rub this in a little bit: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 A little more rubbing it in: Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 And a little more rubbing it in: Even John McCain is involved in this crap (see here). The CNN fake news thing came from the presser Trump held a little earlier today. Who's the conspiracy theorist now? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now