Media Bias, We report - you decide

Here are some suggestions to the Democrats and a comment for CBS News:

Democrats: If you're going to forge documents from the late 60's and early 70's you might want to at least make the effort to find an old typewriter to forge them on (preferably one with a couple crooked letters and a correct font).

CBS: Your bias is showing (and maybe it's time for Dan Rather to retire)

Mike, including the guys signature???

I heard another interesting tidbit (on NPR) related to this, but I don't know what to make of it:

Apparently, there was a post on ABC's weblog (yes, ABC) at 8:59 pm that same night which started discussing the possibilities of these documents being forged. While this response is not surprising, what IS surprising is that it happened during the same hour that the CBS program was being aired.

The documents were not available yet, and CBS had only shown a brief, non-close-up glance at the documents on TV.

So was it a lucky guess by the poster in the hopes that the docs WERE forged, and then they actually were? Or did he or she actually know something? And if so, whose side are they actually on?


Erik

A few weeks ago, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe was on PBS' ''Newshour'' explaining why the hundreds of swift boat veterans' allegations against John Kerry's conduct in Vietnam was unworthy of his attention. "The standard of clear and convincing evidence," he said, talking to Swiftvet John O'Neill, "is what keeps this story in the tabloids -- because it does not meet basic standards."

OK Mr. Oliphant, exactly what are the "basic standards"?

Dan Rather and the elderly gentlemen at ''60 Minutes'' were all excited because they'd come into possession of some hitherto undiscovered memos relating to whether George W. Bush failed to show up for his physical. The media had been flogging this dead horse for years, but these "newly 'discovered'' memos had jump-started the old nag.

Thomas Oliphant's Boston Globe, the New York Times and the Washington Post all rushed the story onto their front pages because it met their ''basic standards.''

Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who oversaw "60 Minutes," recently commented on media institutions like CBS and the emerging crop of web blogs: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."

Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that does not meet "basic standards". But a CBS hoax that was so easy to debunk (by people in their living room wearing pajamas), one in which neither CBS nor anyone else obviously did any fact-checking -- that meets "basic standards".

Therefore can anyone guess the proper definition of "basic standards"? It's simply "does it promote euro-neo-liberalism"? There's the media bias in America.

On the one hand, we have hundreds of living veterans with chapter and verse on Kerry's fantasy Christmas in Cambodia (made public by people in their living room wearing pajamas), and, on the other hand, we have a guy who's been dead 20 years but is still capable of operating Microsoft Word (promised to be valid by multiple layers of check and balances at '60 Minutes'). There's the media bias in America.

According to the American Spectator, ''The CBS producer said that some alarm bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story.'' But they wouldn't touch the highly documented words of the Swiftees. There's the media bias in America.

The media and the Democrats sustain each other's make-believe land. Dan Rather tells his staff, ''Kerry's told me there's nothing to this Swiftvet thing.'' Kerry tells his, ''Rather's assured me this Swiftvet story's going nowhere.'' There's the media bias in America.

Next week's ''60 Minutes'': ''Exclusive! Handwriting Expert Says Bush Wrote The Hitler Diaries!''

Sen. Tom Harkin enthusiastically held a press conference on Thursday morning using the forged documents as the tent pole for attacks against President Bush. Harkin called Bush a "liar." How is it that a US Senator can hold a press conferrence less than 24 hours after the CBS show, quoting from the forged documents? Did he have an "advance copy"? Or did he already know about the documents? Did he have a hand in this hoax?

A defensive Dan Rather went on the air Friday to complain of what he called a "counterattack" from "partisan political operatives." It appears to me that Dan and his buddies are the "partisan political operatives" and that the "counterattack" comes from the mainstream media. There's the media bias in America.

You're kidding, right?

How is it that a politician can grab onto any little thing and use it to hammer the president from the opposition party with six weeks to go before the election? Hmmmmm.......

I don't think he had an advance copy. I think he and his aides saw it on the news and leapt on it like a hungry cheetah chasing a sick antelope.

It has nothing to do with conspiracies. It has everything to do with naked opportunism and the chance to embarrass the other side.


Erik

Right about now there is only one legitimate news institution in this country that believes the documents produced by Dan Rather last week are real, and that news institution is CBS. We have former FBI document experts, typesetting experts, typewriter experts, and experts on experts who all say that the documents are false. Nobody not working for CBS news has come forward to say the documents are real. Nobody. Even the lady who did the typing for Lt. Col. Jerry Killian while he was Bush's National Guard Commander says that the documents are "most certainly" fakes. Yet Dan Rather continues to stand by the authenticity of the documents. Why?

And what about CBS's "document expert?" Marcel Matley, a primary CBS "expert" is not certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. Matley has no formal training in document examination, has never been trained in any document laboratory and has no law enforcement training. Marcel Matley is the man CBS cites as the expert who verified Jerry Killian's signature on the questioned documents. Where did this man get his experience? This the man CBS wants to rely on for expert analysis of their prized documents?

Some of CBS's experts warned CBS not to use those documents in their news story, that the documents might not be genuine. Emily Will, a document examiner consulted by CBS, told ABC News "I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story." Rather didn't listen. Why?

Dan Rather and CBS News offered Americans a set of faked, forged documents to push the idea that George Bush was, in essence, a National Guard slacker.

Rather has an intense hatred for all things Bush, probably starting way back in 1988 with his interview with Vice President George Bush 41. Rather has never been a fan of anything conservative while generally throwing softballs to the liberals. But this time Rather has shown his true colors, and the colors of CBS News, to Joe Sixpack, and I certainly hope that both CBS and Dan Rather reap their "rewards".

Rather also doesn't want the the story to become the forged documents. These documents came from a Kinko's in Abeline, Texas, sent by Bill Burkett, a big-time Democratic supporter. Burkett also is a retired Texas Air National Guard officer who is and has been hell bent on the political destruction of George W. Bush. Burkett has been in a dispute with the Texas National Guard over medical benefits. Apparently he contracted some disease during an assignment in Panama. Since leaving the guard, he has suffered a nervous breakdown and been hospitalized for depression.

Most of the mainstream media is well aware of Mr. Burkett and his vendetta. They also know that he is not what you would consider to be a good source. We must assume that Rather and the CBS news officials have heard from this character before. This would mean that they probably knew that there were some strong questions about Burkett's honesty, and thus strong questions about the genuineness of those documents. CBS chose to ignore those questions, and the questions put on the table by their own "experts," and went ahead.

Even ABC News is reporting that CBS News ignored concerns about the authenticity of the fake memos.

Again, why? How many of you actually trust CBS news any more? Would Dan Rather have accepted phony documents had they been about John Kerry and come from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? The CBS anchor has now been caught red handed trying to help elect Kerry. CBS's Andy Rooney once called Dan Rather "transparently liberal" and advised him to "be more careful." It appears Rather should have listened.

At the time of Bush's service National Guard regulations required a minimum of 50 service points to satisfy a yearly obligation. Since Bush joined the Guard in May of 1968, his "year" ran from May to May. Byron York writing in "The Hill" gives us the total number of points he earned for each year of service:

May 1968 to May 1969 253 points
May 1969 to May 1970 340 points
May 1970 to May 1971 137 points
May 1971 to May 1972 112 points
May 1972 to May 1973 56 points
May 1973 to May 1974 56 points

Uh oh. Yes, his points went down over time, but it looks like Bush made the grade every single year. Don't look for this information in one of Rather's broadcasts.

The 'blogosphere' took down CBS News. Hopefully NBC and ABC won't be far behind.

Has Brother Shamalama points out President Bush fulfilled his obligations as required by military regulations.

My own personal experience:

After 6 months in the inactive reserves and almost 9 years of active duty in the United States Navy I enlisted in the Naval Reserve with the intent of doing my 1 weekend a month and two weeks active duty a year. After I got settled into civilian life I found that the time I had set aside for the reserves had disappeared in favor of keeping my job and putting food on the table. Now admittedly George Bush has probably never had to worry about things at that level (and neither has John Kerry) but it is not always easy to balance things in the manner one would like. Since I had served the 6 years (active, and then some) we owe the government I was able to transfer to inactive Naval Reserve by writing a letter to my command requesting said transfer and it was automatically granted (I guess some would say I shirked my duty). George Bush also fulfilled his minimum requirements each year as he was required to do. Any less and I don't care who his dad or Grand-dad was I'm sure the chain of command would have come down on him like a ton of bricks (can anyone say "Transfer to Active Duty, orders to combat duty, SE Asia"?).

Despite what has been tossed back and forth here, I still have not seen any evidence that certain segments of the media do NOT have a conservative bias. I freely admit that there are some segments of the media that have a liberal bias -- CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times, and NPR? (Although a recent study has shown that NPR is actually starting to tilt more toward the right in terms of overall news coverage).

But will the "anti-liberal bias" folks here agree that there is a conservative bias?

Like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw of NBC (both self-avowed conservatives)?

How about MSNBC, the station jointly owned by General Electric and Microsoft, two corporations whose management and Board of Directors are decidedly Republican?

What about ABC Radio, the distributors for the Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura shows?

The Washington Times and the New York Post?

Just curious.


Erik Deckers

CBS News and ABC News are markedly liberal. Those two account for a huge percentage of the mainstream televised media and news.

CNN is markedly liberal, although, due to the recent dominance of Fox News, they have started actually taking a neutral stance on some issues. CNN accounts for a huge percentage of online news media, although they are woefully suffering on cable/satellite televised news.

The New York Times is a major source of the New York-based televised media. There have been numerous accounts of shows like NBC's Today program taking stories practically verbatim from the New York Times. Therefore the New York Times decidely liberal slant affects a large number of televised viewers. The liberal LA Times is the west coast equal of the New York Times, both in print and televised news media.

Tim Russet a conservative? Normally a balanced interviewer who presses both liberals and conservatives to justify their positions, Russert has often repeated a favorite 'Meet the Press' theme that President Bush's tax cut was unaffordable and fiscally irresponsible. Russet has always disagreed with tax cuts as a fiscal policy, even though it is nearly always a major plank of the conservative and libertarian movements. I can't see calling him a conservative.

And just because MSNBC is "jointly owned by General Electric and Microsoft whose management and Board of Directors are decidedly Republican" has no bearing on any of their news stories, and to assert such is laughable. Most Board of Directors of any major corporation tend to be conservative.

And just because of the fact that ABC radio distribute Limbaugh and Laura has no bearing on any of their news stories, and to assert such is laughable. And you missed Paul Harvey and Sean Hannity. But ABC Radio also has the following formats: Oldies, Classic Rock, Country, Adult Contemporary, Urban, Contemporary, R&B, and Gospel. Are those conservative as well? Is ABC Radio's urban hip-hop programming promoting the Republican cause?

I still say that there is far more liberal media and news reporting hitting more average Americans than there is conservative media and news reporting. That slant has an effect during elections, and thus has the ability to shape the course of the American government. That's why I use terms like "mainstream media" - the major sources of information for the most viewers/readers.

If it weren't for "renegade" media outlets such as the Drudge Report the average American wouldn't have discovered that Dan Rather and CBS News used shoddy reporting, and maybe even direct lying and cover-ups, in a bogus smearing of the conservative candidate. If it weren't for "biased" organizations like Fox News the average American would never have heard of the Swift Boat Veterans and their claims of the liberal candidate's lying about his military career. For the first time, possibly ever, the average American now hears both sides of an issue, of a candidate, and can now make an informed and intelligent decision. Maybe now the liberal bias of the mainstream media will be too scared of public ridicule, thanks to Dan Rather, to rear its ugly head.

Can the CBS document story get any more bizzare?

Yep, the documents were forgeries. Check out the following link for all the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...ocs_091804.html

The discovery was made by amateur bloggers in scant hours of the original broadcast. There is absolutely no reason, no reason at all, that all the investigative power of CBS News shouldn't have discovered the truth immediately. Even the other media outlets picked up on this within a few days thanks to a constant public hammering of the issue by Matt Drudge (The New York Times wouldn't have done so on its own).

The fact that Bill Burkett came up with the documents should have meant something. Burkett is the owner of some strongly held left-wing political views. He blames Bush for the military denying him medical care during an illness in 1998. He is known for trying to be a political player, writing editorials and trying to sway the American people against George Bush and the Republican Party.

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member. Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

Joe Lockhart, a Kerry campaign advisor, said CBS producer Mary Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

Yep, the Kerry campaign is at least somewhat involved with CBS and the bogus documents. Is anyone surprised? But we all know that nothing will be done about any of this. Can anyone imagine the outrage if this had been Fox News and the Bush campaign? Is there any liberal out there that can spell the word "hypocracy"?

At least two experts consulted by CBS warned against going with the story, saying there were "problems" with the memos. But CBS, and Dan Rather himself, ran with it anyway.

CBS must have suspected it was using counterfeit documents. Worse, CBS may be complicit in a criminal conspiracy to use forged U.S. government documents to bring down a president. Rather and CBS executives and producers must testify against the hatchers of this rotten plot or they, too, must stand trial as accomplices. CBS can't be allowed to get by with a "we were duped" admission. If they admit that the documents were forged, then the documents, who forged them, and how they got to CBS become the story. There should be no pretense at protecting sources. You don't protect sources who feed you bogus documents. To maintain even a sliver of journalistic integrity CBS will have to divulge just where those documents came from. Divulging the source of those documents would be no problem to Dan Rather if that source was operating independently of the Democratic Party or of the Kerry Campaign. But, what if the source was the Democratic Party or of the Kerry Campaign with only Burkett or Cleland as a middle-man? Is it time for another Vince Foster 'suicide' to 'happen'?

This week the mystery has been just why Rather has seemed almost afraid to step forward and admit that the documents are forgeries. At this point virtually everyone else in the media - and that includes the DC and NYC press corps - knew the documents were fakes, his CBS bosses were about to capitulate, yet Rather was still using his "the documents may be fake, but they're correct" escape valve. Was he that blind, or that dumb?

How could Rather have been so stubborn and blind? He is now a cartoon caricature of liberal bias. Can anyone believe CBS would have clung this long to so patently falsified an attack if it were against John Kerry? The Swift Boaters had far more evidence and CBS never gave them the time of day. Dan Rather is perhaps the most partisan of the major broadcast network news anchors. His hatred of all things Bush approaches the pathological. His burning desire to see John Kerry elected this fall has clouded his news judgment. He was all-too-eager to jump on a story that he thought could wound or possibly cripple Bush. Can he spell the phrase "journalistic integrity"?

Dan Rather has no credibility left, assuming anyone but liberals has believed anything coming out of CBS for the past several years. This will also have an effect on all mainstream media news outlets. It was pride and a blind hatred of Conservatives that led Rather to commit a journalistic atrocity that will end up killing not the President's re-election, but his own reputation and career, and maybe Kerry's chance at the Presidency.

I have never seen an implosion that was as beautiful as this one. Can I dare hope that Peter Jennings will suffer the same fate as Dan "I am CBS" Rather?

Tim Russert has said he's a conservative. So has Tom Brokaw. In fact, Rush Limbaugh said in one of his books that Brokaw was a liberal. But Brokaw got so upset that Rush printed a retraction in another book AND said so on the air.

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I don't agree with everything my party does. That doesn't make me a non-Democrat. Tim Russert can be (and IS) a conservative and yet still agree with his party. Bill O'Reilly did the same thing when he actually apologized for siding with President Bush on the Iraq war.

There is a rather famous story of Jack Welch, CEO of GE, who personally killed a story about light bulbs that would have thrown GE bulbs into a bad light (no pun intended). Commercial TV and radio is notorious for spiking stories that will show bad light on their employer or owner.

As far as ABC goes, how many liberal radio shows do they promote and distribute?

If you want to get an idea of who is doing liberal and conservative media, check out some of the studies from groups like FAIR (www.fair.org) or university linguists. They will set up parameters about what is considered liberal and conservative language and then examine the stories to see which type of language is used.

So tell me this: Did the liberal media who covered up the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Didn't the liberal media show the same clip of Clinton hugging Monica day after day? Didn't the liberal media who did not give us a daily update on what was going on with the Congressional hearings? Didn't the liberal media record every salacious detail of presidential DNA, the Starr report, and the cigar?

If there was truly a liberal media, Monica wouldn't have been the big splash that it was.

I've already agreed that there is a liberal media bias. But I believe there is also a conservative one that is equally rampant. And for every liberal bias you can point to, I can point to a conservative one.

So you can say "CNN this" and "NPR that," but that doesn't change the fact that there is ALSO a strong conservative bias that shares the airwaves. If there wasn't, people wouldn't find these results in the numerous studies that have been published over the past few years.

BTW, do you know that the term "liberal media" was coined by Pat Buchanan when he worked for Ronald Reagan? Reagan used it in a speech, and it took off. Buchanan later admitted that there was no liberal media -- they just made it up for political reasons. But the Republicans have managed to hang on to that myth and beat it in the ground.


Erik

Monica? Oh my heavens. The mainstream media had been spiking the story for weeks, and would have kept it buried had it not been for a new blogger by the name of Matt Drudge. He broke the story, not the mainstream media. It was only after he kept pounding on the story that the average American started asking questions, and only after then did powerhouses like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the DC and NYC press corps start actually airing the story. Supposedly reporter Michael Isikoff had been working on "the story of his career", only to have it spiked by his bosses since it would make King Clinton look bad. The story became a sensation DESPITE the efforts of the mainstream media to squash it, much like the CBS fiasco today.

Transcript from ABC'S This Week, 1/18/98:

BILL KRISTOL: The media is going to be an issue here [in the Paula Jones case]. The story in Washington this morning is that NEWSWEEK magazine was going to go with a big story based on tape recorded conversations in which a woman who was a summer intern at the White House, an intern of Leon Panetta's testified --

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And Bill, where did it come from? The DRUDGE REPORT! You know, we've all seen how discredited that it --

BILL KRISTOL: There were screaming arguments at NEWSWEEK magazine yesterday. They finally didn't go with the story. Then there is going to be a question of whether the media is now going to report what are pretty well validated charges of presidential behavior in the White House.

SAM DONALDSON: I'm not an apologist for NEWSWEEK, but if their editors decided that they didn't have it cold enough to go with, I don't think we can here, unless you've seen what they were basing their decision on how can we --

While you're looking at www.fair.org also check out www.mrc.org.

Oh yes, most certainly, there are some media outlets with a strong conservative bias. But it is still my opinion that there is far more liberal media and news reporting hitting more average Americans than there is conservative media and news reporting. Yes, you have Fox News, Matt Drudge, and Tom Brokaw. But their audience is nowhere as large as that of the markedly liberal media (print, televised, and aired). It's no myth when consumer and university studies expose it, and it's not being beaten into the ground - it's being raised and exposed for what it is.

A fairly recent survey of White House correspondents:
- 9 voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988, one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984, zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980, 2 for Reagan

Of the 1400 members of the national media who were in a different survey:
- 44% considered themselves Democrats
- 16% Repubs
- 34% independents
- 89% voted for Clinton in 1992
- 7% voted for Bush in 1992

And these are the people that come into your living room every night and tell you their opinion of what's going on in the world, and expect you to take their word for it. But I think you're going to soon discover that Dan Rather and the liberal media has 'died'. Liberal opinion is in the majority only in the media, not in average Americans.

If anyone could recognize shoddy reporting, it would be Matt Drudge. That man defines the term "attack journalism".

I don't put much stock into the MRC. By their own admission, they're conservative. From their website:

"On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene."

That's not objective. You only have to read the language on their front page to see they're not unbiased.

On the other hand, FAIR says:

"FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

You only have to read their website to see that they attack both sides with equal vehemence. They're not apologists for NPR and CNN -- they've launched some of their most blistering attacks against these two groups. They actually have both liberal and conservative writers working for them, not just one side or the other.

I'm suspicious of organizations, like think tanks and watchdog groups, founded by a group of one ideology who then claim to be unbiased or objective. Unfortunately, in this political landscape, anyone who's in this business has an agenda of some kind. The only way to achieve a balance is not to be objective and not take a side, but to attack both sides equally. I wish there were some entities who actually WERE objective. There are a few, but they're usually polling groups like Gallup.

A group like the MRC is an old PR trick. You create a group to further your own agenda, but make it seem like a grassroots organization or watchdog group. The tobacco industry did it with their Center for Tobacco Research (or whatever it was called).

Basically, unless the group has distinguished themselves as being truly non-partisan or bi-partisan, they're probably not.

Ahhh, and we finally return to the topic at hand: Bias in the Media.

Is there anyone that hasn't seen the liberal bias at CBS yet?

- How is it that one of the most powerful investigative news agencies in the world "duped" by obviously forged documents?
- How is it that Mary Mapes can work on this story for the last 5 years, and all of a sudden these documents seem to appear out of nowhere?
- How is it that CBS didn't listen to their own experts telling them that these documents were suspicious?
- Why would CBS also "include" one of Kerry's top aides in their "uncovering" of these documents?
- Why would CBS put so much faith in previously unknown documents coming from a known liberal hack?

A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that's true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.

CBS' sole (that means 'single') source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's "demonic personality shortcomings" (which would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore). At a minimum, the viewing public should have been informed that CBS' sole "unimpeachable" source of the forged anti-Bush records was textbook left-wing Bill Burkett in order to evaluate the information.

And yet this was the evidence CBS relied on to accuse a sitting president of a court martial-level offense 50 days before a presidential election. Dan Rather either knew he was promoting forgeries on the nation to try to change a presidential election, or he simply wanted to believe that he "had the goods" to bring down Bush once and for all.

The liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence, an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career. To the contrary, such an outrageous fraud was inevitable given the outright partisanship of the mainstream press.

Burkett didn't come to CBS; CBS found Burkett. Rather's producer, Mary Mapes, called Joe Lockhart at the Kerry campaign and told him he needed to talk to Burkett. Lockhart himself has been moving in and out of Democratic campaigns and jobs with the mainstream media, including at ABC, NBC and CNN. But there's no bias, huh?

What if CBS had waited 72 hours before the election to air this false character assassination?

Has anyone forgotten the near total blackout on the Swift Boat Veterans in the mainstream media? And NBC's Today Show gave 3 days to Kitty Kelley? CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry. But there's no bias, huh?

It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society (even without Kerry's post-Vietnam help). It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts.

And as for Drudge: do you realize that 99% of what goes on his website are links to other news agencies and stories? How in the world do you consider that "attack journalism"? He simply shows you stuff that CNN won't; that doesn't make it any less true.

It is comforting to watch Dan's career go down in flames. It is comforting that because of internet bloggers the media's (mostly liberal) stranglehold on information is ended. It's about time we started hearing the truth.

Can CBS be more biased?

Five weeks before the election, CBS decided to give legitimacy to Internet rumors by devoting a "What Does It Mean to You?" segment to "fears" of a supposedly Bush-supporting mother that President Bush will impose a military draft. Dan Rather said, "A mother worries her son will be drafted. Does she have good reason?" Richard Schlesinger focused his piece around how the mother "is petrified about a military draft, and she's not alone. Mass e-mails are circulating among worried parents."

Schlesinger had given credence to her fear: "The machinery for a draft is already in place, and the acting director of Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly."

Wow.

But wait a minute. There is zero chance of the draft returning. The only people that have brought it up are Democrats who are trying to invent a mythical issue to bash President Bush with. Anyone who says the draft might return is lying. There will be no return of the draft. The administration and the Pentagon all have said it clearly: no draft.

Since they sensed and opportunity to spread a lie in order to defeat the president, CBS and Dan Rather decided to report on "draft fears," and profiled a woman who said she was worried about the draft. And the supposedly 'concerned mother' is actually the head of an interest group called People Against the Draft. It turns out this group has leftist Democratic ties.

Is anyone surprised?