The CBS New - Kerry campaign connection.

[Norlamand]

The story continues to evolve in an increasingly interesting way.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm

I'm curious to hear what people think of the current developments and:

1) What does it say, in general, about the objectivity of news reporting.
2) What should be the consequences for those involved.
3) Random thoughts on your part concerning the story as a whole.

 

[CenturionV]

I'd say that all in all this is hurting kerry's chances even more than they already are.

Its like fate is conspiring to bring about another 4 years of bush!

 

[Norlamand]

And the plot continues to thicken..........

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm

 

[IglooDame]

This line from that article is pretty telling:

Burkett voiced frustration that his effort to call attention to what he believes are legitimate questions about Bush's military service is now being obscured by a new story line: "that I am some kind of nut."

No, the new story line is that CBS didn't adequately do a background investigation on the story. That Burkett may be some kind of nut is purely secondary.

 

[thestonesfan]

I can't believe this is happening in our conservative media!

 

[test_specimen]

Wow, I never viewed news this way: A news company uncovers something questionable in Bush's past, but the thing most morally questionable about it, is that Kerry uses it for his campaign.

Wait. They did the same thing before: Clinton betrays his wife, but what makes the news is that he hasn't openly admitted to it.

Why doesn't it make the news, that Bush can't admit to being a deserter? No one believes him anyway, so why can't he have the guts stand to his past? It should be totally irrelevant for the election anyway - what counts are the four past years, he's got to defend enough about them, why dig up the past?

 

[IglooDame]

Wow, I never viewed news this way: A news company uncovers something questionable in Bush's past, but the thing most morally questionable about it, is that Kerry uses it for his campaign.

Wait. They did the same thing before: Clinton betrays his wife, but what makes the news is that he hasn't openly admitted to it.

Why doesn't it make the news, that Bush can't admit to being a deserter? No one believes him anyway, so why can't he have the guts stand to his past? It should be totally irrelevant for the election anyway - what counts are the four past years, he's got to defend enough about them, why dig up the past?

Kerry is using it in his campaign? Where did that happen, I must have missed it.

You know, Dan Rather would probably not be wiping egg off his face right now if he'd taken the same tack that the media generally did with the Swift Boat Vets business, which was to report on the SBV and their accusations rather than represent the SBV accusations themselves as truth.