Regarding the CBS document scandal, (former?) reader Walter Sobchak writes:
I think, Jeff, what you’re missing in this whole discussion is the possibility that CBS actually believed the documents were genuine, even if it turns out that they were forgeries. I know, I know, the liberal media hate Bush and want to make sure he doesn’t get re-elected blah blah blah, but even so, does it seem particularly likely that so many prominent individuals (such as Dan Rather) would be willing to risk their credibility just to offer further evidence of an accusation against Bush which will be believed or disbelieved based far more on political affiliation than empirical evidence? Bush supporters will claim it’s just part of a manufactured left-wing attack campaign, and his opponents will claim that it’s just one more item to add to an already-existing mountain of evidence. So who stands to gain more from the publication of a document whose veracity can be so easily called into question?
And speaking of which, for someone who likes to deride Michael Moore as a [fatfatfatfatfat] paranoid (which probably isn’t far from the truth), tinfoil-hat-wearing propaganda hack, you seem to readily accept, nay, even shill for, the idea of a left-wing media conspiracy to bring Bush down. I’m not saying the one necessarily invalidates the other; it doesn’t. But perhaps before you write your next oh-so-clever post attacking Moore or anyone else to the left Joe Lieberman, you might want to consider how easy it is -assuming you really believe what you’re saying- to construct a demonic, caricaturish mental image of one’s political opponents in such a manner that you are willing to believe even the most ridiculous, impractical assertions made by the most extreme elements of “your side”. This is the trap into which the far left has fallen against Bush: they have allowed emotion to overwhelm reason, thereby helping to undermine what is, objectively, a very strong case against this administration. You might want to consider whether you are simply filling the same role on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
protein wisdom responds:
In the time it took me to write this response, Michael Moore finished off three Feta cheese calzones, a bucket of shelled pistachios nuts, and a half-trough of Mountain Dew (with extra syrup).
Because he’s that fat.
*This post available for a limited time only. Some restrictions apply.
Only a half-trough? Dang, he’s cutting back. They need to hurry up and roll-out the no-carbs version so Mikey can guzzle more Dew, faster.
If he keeps drinking less, he’s liable to fall asleep at the table and go facedown in the trough and…
Never mind.
Ah, good old Walter.
I find it somewhat annoying that all the attacks on those criticizing Rather make it a partisan issue. While I know that Rather leans heavily left and was likely motivated by ideology to believe something, I think his incredible carelessness and rush to run with documents that were not properly authenticated and sources that have now all recanted or denied is …
… hubris and a taste for sensationalism. What a lot of people miss about reporters is the fact that they (and bloggers) are motivated as much by a desire to break something “hot” as they are by political partisanship.
Did anybody actually read the email? I got to “I think, Jeff, what you’re missing in this whole discussion,” went “ugh,” and skipped to Jeff’s response.
Which is TOTALLY the way to go on this one.
At this point the only thing left to do is spin homey west Texan sayings that no west Texan would actually say.
Dan’s curled up like an armadillo on the four lane hoping that the semi doesn’t squish him.
And his so-called “memos” are no more accurate or reliable than my grandmother’s big toe was when it came to predicting the weather.
…they have allowed emotion to overwhelm reason
What? Not the left! Why, that hardly ever happens!
“Bush…opponents will claim that it’s just one more item to add to an already-existing mountain of evidence.” How would one know if there is indeed a mountain of evidence, since it was the now proven liars in the MSM who reported it?
“You might want to consider whether you are simply filling the same role on the opposite side of the political spectrum.” Maybe, but it just feels so gooooood after 40 years. Let us gloat for a minute.
CBS is culpable if only because it was blinded by glittering, slanderous “goldâ€Â; tried to cash it in, but failed to check if it was merely fools gold.
Walter Sobchak’s point is a valid one up to a point, and deserves a certain amount of respect.
It breaks, however, upon the rocks of “reasonable doubt.” At what point should Jeff or me or the blogosphere or all those capable of seeing the truth about these documents (and let’s assume that the Truth in this case is not an interpretable value, but is confined merely to the binary question of ‘documents authentic’/’documents forged’
still feel compelled to respect the genuineness of Dan Rather’s or the Boston Globe‘s belief?
They believe in what they’re doing, in a fundamental way. But that “genuineness” is even more contemptible to me (a Talleyrandish type in many ways) because of the pathetic way in which faith blinds one to the obvious.
Jeff is not implying, it seems to me, that the conspiracy going on here is predicated upon an understanding by the Globe (or other relevant MSM elements) that sure these docs are false but we don’t care. I think he allows for the possibility that agents like Rather and The Globe have sealed themselves off in their own reality, and when they’re not falling victim to confirmation bias, they’re engaging in source stretching in the name of a greater Truth – which they would not perceive as a bad thing.
It’s because of THIS that I feel such unquenchable contempt for CBS and The Globe. Because the quasi-religious quality of their pre-established belief that Bush screwed off his Guard service has taken such . I would submit, knowing what I know about the nature of devotional belief and its irrational foundations, that agents like Rather and the reporters of the Globe DO believe these documents, or at least the deeper Truth behind them, is real. That’s why, if someone questioned the Globe‘s reporter about his quote-bending, he quite possibly would profess genuine surprise at what he was accused of doing. It was natural reflex: he sought for something that could confirm his beliefs, and found a scrap. You’re seeing this all through the Left-blogosphere right now, as well. (Jeff also addressed this in the comments section of Pandagon and TalkLeft, with a similarly depressing lack of success.)
And this dereliction of duty in favor of the Postmodern Turn is why <hyperbole>the Mainstream Media must be destroyed for the good of us all.</hyperbole>
Ol’ Dan is clinging to his story like an Odessa wildcat rigger clinging to a Pearl beer after a shift.
The end of Walter’s argument is laughable, where he suggests that the far left has fallen into a trap that is “helping to undermine what is, objectively, a very strong case against this administration.”
What we have is an assertion stated as fact. For there to be a case, you need to make it (rather than asserting it is so). Whether such a case is strong or weak, the voters will have the final say. And whatever that case might be, it is most certainly a subjective one at that.
I don’t think Jeff is at risk of falling into the trap of emotion dictating his reason, given the very weak reasoning supplied.
In the time it took me to write this response, Michael Moore finished off three Feta cheese calzones, a bucket of shelled pistachios nuts, and a half-trough of Mountain Dew (with extra syrup).
An after-dinner mint, Mr. Creosote?
Here’s another bit for Walt to chew on:
Chose to move ahead being the important phrase.
Me, I think their zealotry got the best of them; but since the scandal broke, they’ve gone beyond their initial error to the point of outright fraud.
And anybody paying attention (the way the Globe and CBS are running stories validating each others’ error-ridden stories, is a prime example) knows it.
Jeff, the veracity of your access to the inestimable Mr. Moore is so transparent. everyone knows he can’t stomach feta; it’s brie, Jeff, brie.
as to other points, the oh-so-analytical Walter steps right over the rubber/glue problem with his summation. if all criticism is partisan-driven or partisan-feeding, then there must be no criticism. nice try at shutting up (or shutting down, for blogs) opposition. does Walter hail from China?
ps Walter, if in future I have a choice between sampling your logic and thumbscrews, you can expect I’ll opt for the hardware. and where does your post, criticizing Jeff’s critique, fit in?
Based on your descriptions of Oliver Willis and Michael Moore always eating, how can you tell them apart?
Michael Moore’s the one without a blog. Which means you’ll never see him in pajamas.
Thank the good Lord.