Shirley Sherrod: An interesting Timeline of events (wow its not fox new's fault)

[daveman]

Not even CLOSE to a comparison. Nobody is denying that Sherrod said the thing she did.

Ummm...

Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

 

[DiveCon]

He may or may not have edited it. If a tape is significantly edited it may as well be false. He had to have known it was incomplete - he'd be stupid not to have realized that. He didn't care. He didn't verify. He's no different from Dan Rather in the way he violated ethics, if not the law, in presenting the material.

He may not have violated the letter of the law, but he sure as hell violated the spirit.

and again, Hanlons razor would apply in that case
he may have miscalculated what the reactions would be
but, to sue and win you have to prove that he did it intentionally
and to win damages, you actually have to prove damage

I do agree with that, and that is why it is why public figures seldom bother to sue.

And he probably did miscalculate - much like Rather - but that doesn't absolve him, in my opinion, from what he did particularly compounded with an utter lack of regret for the effect on a person who didn't deserve it.

I just don't get defending that kind of person - it's as if the defender is saying the ends justify the means. When it comes to damaging innocent people to score political points, I don't agree.

Usually, what goes around comes around. Eventually, Breitbart and those like him on either side of the partisan divide, will get bitten in the butt.

it actually doesnt look like that happens anymore
seems like they tend to go on with help by the extremes on their respective sides

 

[daveman]

Rather didn't "MANUFACTURE" anything, the documents were sent to him. And when the documents could not be verified he revealed the source of the documents.

 

[Coyote]

Not even CLOSE to a comparison. Nobody is denying that Sherrod said the thing she did.

Ummm...

Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

What's yer point Dave?

 

[daveman]

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

Now as a mind-reader you know what was in Rather's mind so you can say Rather KNEW the documents were fake, but no one can read Bigotbart's mind to say he edited the video.

The editor has not come forward and Bigotbart has not revealed the editor who made a fool of him, so the only logical reason for that is self-preservation.

Until Bigotbart names the editor, Bigotbart is the editor.

Yeah, like you'd believe him.

 

[daveman]

Not even CLOSE to a comparison. Nobody is denying that Sherrod said the thing she did.

Ummm...

Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

What's yer point Dave?

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

 

[Coyote]

Ummm...

​

What's yer point Dave?

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

 

[edthecynic]

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

Now as a mind-reader you know what was in Rather's mind so you can say Rather KNEW the documents were fake, but no one can read Bigotbart's mind to say he edited the video.

The editor has not come forward and Bigotbart has not revealed the editor who made a fool of him, so the only logical reason for that is self-preservation.

Until Bigotbart names the editor, Bigotbart is the editor.

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"
LOL'

and NO, you can not make the claim that breitbart edited it without PROOF
lack of proof is not evidence of guilt

Again, you have no proof Rather said that BEFORE the program aired on 9/8/04 yet you state it as fact. You demand proof about Bigotbart but you freely speculate about Rather.

Dan Rather Statement On Memos - CBS News

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2004
Dan Rather Statement On Memos
Newsman No Longer Has Confidence In Authenticity Of Bush Guard Documents

"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith"

 

[DiveCon]

Now as a mind-reader you know what was in Rather's mind so you can say Rather KNEW the documents were fake, but no one can read Bigotbart's mind to say he edited the video.

The editor has not come forward and Bigotbart has not revealed the editor who made a fool of him, so the only logical reason for that is self-preservation.

Until Bigotbart names the editor, Bigotbart is the editor.

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"
LOL'

and NO, you can not make the claim that breitbart edited it without PROOF
lack of proof is not evidence of guilt

Again, you have no proof Rather said that BEFORE the program aired on 9/8/04 yet you state it as fact. You demand proof about Bigotbart but you freely speculate about Rather.

Dan Rather Statement On Memos - CBS News

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2004
Dan Rather Statement On Memos
Newsman No Longer Has Confidence In Authenticity Of Bush Guard Documents

"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith"

then he is a liar because other DID tell him it wasnt authentic BEFORE he went on the air

he chose to ignore it and ran with it anyway
hes after the fact claim he didnt know is a LIE

 

[edthecynic]

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"
LOL'

and NO, you can not make the claim that breitbart edited it without PROOF
lack of proof is not evidence of guilt

Again, you have no proof Rather said that BEFORE the program aired on 9/8/04 yet you state it as fact. You demand proof about Bigotbart but you freely speculate about Rather.

Dan Rather Statement On Memos - CBS News

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2004
Dan Rather Statement On Memos
Newsman No Longer Has Confidence In Authenticity Of Bush Guard Documents

"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith"

then he is a liar because other DID tell him it wasnt authentic BEFORE he went on the air

he chose to ignore it and ran with it anyway
hes after the fact claim he didnt know is a LIE

Where is YOUR proof?

Let me remind you what you said earlier in this very thread:

Originally Posted by DiveCon
you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

 

[Big Fitz]

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

Burkett, Mapes, Rather and others were all in a conspiracy to publish a lie to remove a sitting president out of whole cloth. This is not the same as an 'unfair' or misleading edit that is quickly discovered by viewing the raw footage. That's the major point. As far as I'm concerned Rather may as well have typed the memo himself for all his involvement and willful conspiracy in that event.

There is no equivalency. That's my point but thanks for the clarification.

It wasn't Sherrod Brietbart was out to get, it was the NAACP. His motive was retaliation for the Tea Party racism.

And so a truth is spoken. The NAALCP (ever hear of them supporting anything BUT liberals?) is racist and leftist. This is a truth long established. So the fuckup of Sherrod's firing, once again is fully on the administration. When are you apologists and spinning idiots going to butch up and accept that fact?

 

[Big Fitz]

Ummm...

​

What's yer point Dave?

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

 

[DiveCon]

Again, you have no proof Rather said that BEFORE the program aired on 9/8/04 yet you state it as fact. You demand proof about Bigotbart but you freely speculate about Rather.

Dan Rather Statement On Memos - CBS News

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2004
Dan Rather Statement On Memos
Newsman No Longer Has Confidence In Authenticity Of Bush Guard Documents

"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith"

then he is a liar because other DID tell him it wasnt authentic BEFORE he went on the air

he chose to ignore it and ran with it anyway
hes after the fact claim he didnt know is a LIE

Where is YOUR proof?

Let me remind you what you said earlier in this very thread:

Originally Posted by DiveCon
you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

oh man
ok
if you dont actually remember the facts i'll look, but its a dead issue that went away over 6 years ago

from the wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy#Authentication_issues

In the broadcast, Rather stated Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real," and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material", that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents.

rather knew they were not authetic

 

[Big Fitz]

then he is a liar because other DID tell him it wasnt authentic BEFORE he went on the air

he chose to ignore it and ran with it anyway
hes after the fact claim he didnt know is a LIE

Where is YOUR proof?

Let me remind you what you said earlier in this very thread:

Originally Posted by DiveCon
you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

oh man
ok
if you dont actually remember the facts i'll look, but its a dead issue that went away over 6 years ago

They're still mad Reagan won in 1980. 6 years is nothing.

 

[Coyote]

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

Burkett, Mapes, Rather and others were all in a conspiracy to publish a lie to remove a sitting president out of whole cloth. This is not the same as an 'unfair' or misleading edit that is quickly discovered by viewing the raw footage. That's the major point. As far as I'm concerned Rather may as well have typed the memo himself for all his involvement and willful conspiracy in that event.

You can subtantiate that claim?

There is no equivalency. That's my point but thanks for the clarification.

It wasn't Sherrod Brietbart was out to get, it was the NAACP. His motive was retaliation for the Tea Party racism.

Not unsurprising, yet another example of the partisan double standard hard at work in America.

And so a truth is spoken. The NAALCP (ever hear of them supporting anything BUT liberals?) is racist and leftist. This is a truth long established. So the fuckup of Sherrod's firing, once again is fully on the administration. When are you apologists and spinning idiots going to butch up and accept that fact?

When will you apologists just own up to your own hypcorisy?

 

[Coyote]

What's yer point Dave?

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

What am I denying?

 

[Big Fitz]

When will you apologists just own up to your own hypcorisy?

You first.

See signature below.

 

[daveman]

What's yer point Dave?

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

 

[Big Fitz]

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

okay, yep. that's what I thought you meant.

You can subtantiate that claim?

I don't have to. You just have to go back to the huge scandal reporting done on Memogate/Rathergate and read for yourself. Of course I know you'll cherrypick that to back your point, but I don't really care to spoon feed you on this. I've better things to do.

 

[daveman]

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

okay, yep. that's what I thought you meant.