Translation: The Washington Times is a moonbat rag unless they agree with you.

The washington times, like the Nation, are completely unreadable. period.

I noticed the superscripted "TM" after "Milk-Bone." :-)

This week it is Dan Rather and CBS News, through their failed effort to prove the legitimacy of their forged Bush National Guard documents, who are being revealed as hapless, helpless victims of an anarchic, swarming, overwhelming Internet blog technology.

er, except that instead of being "victims" who "failed to prove the legitimacy" of these docs they are being revealed as charlatans and frauds who who foisted false facts upon us to prove their theories.

cbs: "if the facts don't fit your theories, change the facts"

enozhino,

You make the same anachronistic mistake CBS is making by setting up an either/or authoritative/moonbat false choice about a news organizations.

There may indeed be parts of the Washington Times that are unreadable, but are you really now declaring that Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell and Andrew Sullivan (all regular contributors) are also unreadable? Or is it only the stuff they publish in the Times?

These days you are better off judging ideas from their original base unit, each person. If you have time, you can even judge an individual not as a whole but by each individual piece they put out with bad/good efforts shading future readings of them, but few so demonstrative as to write them off completely or relegate them to deity.

By all means, avoid purchasing the Times if you dislike it, but to wholesale write off anything that is associated with it is to cement yourself into a ratheresque room without a window.

Your attack on the Washington Times is pretty bizarre. It's out of place here to make such an attack but since you did, you might want to base this "moonbat" charge on some sort of logical reason.

I've been reading the Washington Times on line for a couple years now and they are perfectly sane, nothing moonbat about them. I have no idea where you get such an outlandish opinion.

A talking-head named 'Dan Rather,'
once filled our airwaves with his blather.
"These docs are all valid,"
he cried and grew pallid,
as the "you're fired!" clouds above him did gather.

Yes, the WT is owned by the Moonies, and has an ultraconservative editorial board. But I find it a useful alternative to the WP, NYT, et al. One thing that really bugs me about the mainstream media is that they often don't ask (not to mention try to answer) the obvious questions in a story.

A case in point (and I'm fuzzy on the details, so there may be some incorrect facts here): A couple years ago a guy was arrested with a gun while traveling by air to an Islamic conference (in London?). He was some sort of academic and he claimed he just forgot about his legally licensed gun. And that's where most of the media left it.

The obvious question was, at that point and with what we knew at the time, was the guy's excuse at all credible? Okay, so we may not have known, but at least acknowledge the question and say we don't know yet.

Only the WT article went the extra mile and interviewed officials in the guy's residence country in Scandinavia and got an indication that the guy had a dark side, and his claims might not be able to be taken at face value.

The other media "protected" me from as-yet-unproven rumor. Thanks, but I don't need that kind of protection: give me the information and let me judge. The WT is a little "drudgey" in that respect (as are most blogs), but I like that--as an alternative, at least.

Pray, how different is the "moonbat" Washington Times from, say, the New York Post?

Don't tell me you're going all "Andrew Sullivan" on us...

The Washington Times suffers from being owned by the Reverend Moon. I'm guessing that's genesis of the popular blogosphere epithet, moonbat.

For many years before the internet and before FOXNews, the Washington Times was the only media vehicle (except Rush, of course) where non-leftwing nutcase news and ideas could be found.

I'll echo a poster above who asked for more than a brush off that the WT is unreadablel. How about giving us a reason for that statement Stephen.

Living in Florida, I don't think I've ever seen a copy of the print WT and I only read occasional articles, so perhaps they devote page after page to Moonie philosphy. If so, I'll stand corrected.

You've noticed that too, Albert, eh?

The Washington Times article linked above is one of the most insightful and well-written analyses of the rise of the blogosphere I'vve seen.

A gratuitous religious smear and a slap at the newspaper that has, for decades, provided the alternative viewpoint that bloggers are rightfully proud of today. I guess Glenn linked here as a not so subtle contrast to his more reasonable viewpoint.

Since there seems to be little doubt in anyone's mind (but Dan Rather's) that these are forged documents, isn't the remaining question what can be done to hold CBS accountable for such low journalistic standards? In answer to that question, I have sent an email to 60 Minutes expressing my disappointment and advising them that if this story is not retracted, if they don't fully disclose how it came to be on the air (including the source of the memos, if Democrat or Kerry campaign operatives had anything to do with it), if they don't apologize to the president and the other men they defamed and the CBS viewers, and if they don't give equal time on a future 60 Minutes program to those who came forward to refute this story and the authenticity of these documents (especially the wife and son of a dead man who is not able to defend his own honor), I will start writing to their sponsors to let them know that I will not purchase their products if they continue advertising on CBS. The only thing that talks to power is money, so if we, the little people, start letting our money talk, CBS may be willing to let Dan Rather walk. I don't think CBS is going to address this otherwise, as evidenced by Dan Rather's "inside story" last night.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for Rather and CBS if they weren't such arrogant, partisan hacks. It is obvious now that they were coordinating the entire "Fortunate Son" fall campaign with the DNC and the Kerry people. This whole "story" was supposed to dominate the Fall and keep Bush off message for weeks. You can see that they have no Plan B because they are just going ahead with it even now. Rather is no longer a newsman-- he traded the prestige and authority of CBS for partisan gain. He's a hack!

I will say this-- ironically they are right on. GWB is one "fortunate" SOB to have these idiots as enemies.

Inspector Cleauseau would have spotted the fraud in those documents in the first reel.

I'm loving every minute of the unravelling of CBS News. What a feast!

Linda, you may be interested in this handy set of links to feedback pages of 60 Minutes sponsors.

I've been living in Washington all my life, reading both papers (the Times used to be the Star, I believe). The Times is a little less reputable than I'm comfortable with, but Stephen you're way out of line with the casual religious slur. And furthermore, regardless of what you think of the Times' editorial board or news reporting (they're widely thought to have one of the most connected national security reporters in the business in Bill Gertz), Tony Blankley has always been one of my favorite columnists there. He's not a random crank - he's also a regular on the McLaughlin Group - and I've noticed that there's almost always something worth reading in his columns, something that I sadly can't say about David Brooks yet, for example.

Your comment about the "moonbat" Washington Times is so inappropriate that it makes me think you have something more personal such as being insulted when applying for a position there or something like that. As far as Tony Blankley goes (note the correct spelling of his name) your site might benefit from his insightful work.

facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true

Thanks for the links to the sponsors, EvilPundit, I've been looking for them!

Stephen, I want to make clear that I have been reading your blog for a while now and I think your opinions more nearly reflect my own than anyone I've read elsewhere, that's why I was so disappointed in your moonbat comment.

I didn't realize they were owned by the Moonies. That certainly is significant, but I don't think their newspaper is as bad as you make it out to be, in fact I think it's rather good.

I know nothing of the moonies except for their group weddings a long time ago.

"I like a good fish dinner, but I've never cared much for fishing, as I hate to see a noble creature in its death agony."

That's why I practice catch-and-release.

That is a literal statement, not a metaphor, just in case I confused anyone.

And yes, that is the first thing I thought of when reading that line.

Yep, the Moonies owns the WATimes, but who cares? I forged the CBS-Bush Memos!

Could one say at this time, the WT has more cred than CBS???

I think Jim Nantz would be a good replacement for Denyin' Dan.

Dan Rather = flounder

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Blankly just forgot to mention clubbing as a method of putting the catch out of its misery and preventing needless suffering.

Say what you will about the Washington Times, but I can't seem to recall any misreporting scandals that they were involved in recently.

Thanks, Evil Pundit! That will make my chore a whole lot easier! Hope others will send similar messages to CBS too. There really is strength in numbers!

A useful paradigm that has been kicked around is the difference between a "low trust" and "high trust" media. The latter, used to apply to the MSM. The blogs have successfully operated in the former. The blogs can never become a "high trust" media. Everything needs to be fact checked. The cultural bottom line is this: the high trust media died this week. This should be mourned with much weeping. I will need to spend the rest of my life not just being skeptical but cynical of any information from any source, particularly anonymous ones. That is truly tragic. Thanks, Dan Rather.

I wasn't offended by the "moonbat" reference, but I thought that lefties were moonbats and righties were wingnuts.

Isn't it "Blankley", rather than "Blankly"?

I'd point to yet another difference between CBS News/Dan Rather (ir not all the mainstream media) and blogs. Bloggers seem to be much more willing to admit their mistakes. If Dan Rather had gone on the air last Thursday or Friday to say that there was a good enough chance that the documents weren't genuine that he really shouldn't have used them, I wouldn't be thinking that he needs to resign.

The Washington Times is far superior to the Post in terms of coverage and more "fact" reporting than "slant" reporting. The only thing the Post has over it is its coverage of comics.

Stephen,

I gotta chime in. Two of my top ten favorite sources of news/analysis are you and WT.

"I hate to see a noble creature in its death agony"

Oh, brother. A noble creature, the halibut? Catfish? Come on.
Agony? You don't hook em up to an electric chair to kill and cook. You don't plumb your exhaust into your trunk and gas em. Throw a rope over a branch and hang em?
You conk em on the head, gut em, filet em, and cook em.

This guy needs to join PETA. People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

ed

Jeff, I think that the Star folded and, later, the Times was founded -- separate entity, although I wouldn't be surprised if some unemployed ex-Starfolk found their way to the Times.

WaTimes is 'moonbat' while BostonGlobe&CBS do this?

For those who would also like to forge their own documents, this version of MS Word offers 'AssistantII': (found at)

http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/biffstert/forgeAssistant2.jpg

No, I forged those documents!

I love the dramatic decrying of the woefully defeated and dying old guard... It's over! The mainstream television media is forever besmirched! I must question forever the vaildity of News as I know it!!! Dan Rather is dead!... This is the most overblown self-important bunch of beltway blatherers I've ever encountered. The Washington Post is still on top. The NYT is still on top. Scandals are always digested and turned into improvements in reporting. Get a grip.

Isn't anyone on here ashamed of the trouble they'll go to in holding journalists to immensely higher standards than PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES? Thanks to the newly-recognized 'power' of the blogosphere, no one has even asked Bush on the record, "Did you shirk your duty?" Stop wasting your time patting your blog on the back and try hammering some answers out of the candidates, LIKE DAN RATHER USED TO DO. LIKE SAM DONALDSON TRIED TO DO. LIKE MAINSTREAM REPORTERS USED TO DO.

And I covered your ass! I hope you appreciate my efforts.

Dan

Ryan:
If you think news anchors are held to a higher standard than presidential candidates, just watch what happens to John Kerry if this scandal get traced back to his campaign!

maybe the same thing that happened when the swift boat vets were traced back to bush's campaign?

a 7 point jump in the polls?

or maybe the double standard is just between *Republican* politicians and news anchors, thanks to the myth of the liberal media bias?

You may grouse about the Swift Boat Vets, but they didn't traffic in forged documents and they weren't hiding behind annonimity. I have no idea if the Swift Boat Vets allegations are true, but I doubt that they had all that much to do with JFK's fall in the polls. That's just more lib-media spin (just like the "they attacked Max Cleland's patriotism" crap). JFK's a dog candidate and "Bush-hate" will only get you so far. Which is why the National Guard story is largely peripheral, but amusing none the less.

Anyone who reads this blog can probably tell you that the RNC turned on Cleland and McCain when they tried to run against Bush.

Also anyone who reads this blog can tell you that every major poll on the subject concluded that the swift boat ads were hurting Kerry's poll numbers (and I saw that story on both CBS and Fox'News')

Also, I'll direct you to oliverwillis.com, where you can read about how the swift boat vets were brought together, cemented their story during a weekend retreat, then went public. And as for their annonimity- Bush has or has not come out and admitted the close ties between his circle of advisors and the swift boat funding and leadership? Has *not*. I will, again, direct you to oliverwillis.com, where you can view a graphic displaying the aforementioned innerconnectivity.

For the Swift Vet story to be analogous to the Memogate story, this would have to be true:

The Swift Vets would have to be a completely anonomous group (because of "fear of retaliation") who sent obviously forged "records" from John Kerry's military files to Fox News. These "records" would show that Kerry did not earn his Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, etc. The "records" would immediately be revealed to be completely fraudulent, AND despite this, Kerry would still fall 7 points in the polls.

If that was the scenario, then I would agree with you that Kerry was getting the shaft.

I doubt you would ever agree that John Kerry was getting the shaft, just like I doubt you would ever bother to ask whether or not the information contained in the potentially forged documents is valid: bush used family conections to be placed in a unit he knew he wouldn't have to serve; bush skipped out for months; missed a physical; was shephereded through the end of requiremnts; I'm guessing you'd rather focus on the inherent bush-hating of crazed liberal media rantings than ask if Bush ever actually did coke at Camp David. I'm guessing you'd rather deconstruct the source than examine the content of any story that was negative toward Bush, as you've done with the 'memogate.' Have you bothered to look up how many swift boat veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat vs how many served during the same years? Probably not. But wouldn't that invalidate their damaging claims? Only if it was Bush under fire, I suppose.

Instead of trying to draw exact parallels, how about reflecting on the depth to which you're willing to examine democratic tactics versus republican tactics. If you spent 1/8th of the energy looking into the shadowy underworld of republican politics as you do democratic politics you would see they're practically identical in their hideous lies, half-truths, distortions and so on. You can't justify the swift boat fraudulent ads by saying "oh yeah, well the democrats are worse." That's moral/intellectual relativity and it's what allows people to validate their pillar-of-sand belief that their candidate's campaign is somehow less disgusting than the other guy's.

Ryan:
Neither you nor I have access to "the Truth." I was not in Vietnam or Camp David. I have never met President Bush or John Kerry or anyone else I read about in the papers. I can be told anything, and I don't have much to go on except my experiences in life and my intuition. I feel that too much stuff that is presented as "news" is not designed to inform as much as to provoke an emotional reaction in people. Which is why we hear endlessly about Brittney Spears or Vietnam, and very little about corporate taxes.

That being said, I do not dislike President Bush. I do not see him as some inherently evil, machivellian puppet master. I also don't think he is perfect, or a genius or a saint. When he speaks, I believe that he is GENERALLY expressing what he believes (as close as politicians allow themselves to do this). People project a lot of their own world-view onto political figures, so I freely admit I might be wrong about Bush. But I really can't identify with the intensity of "Bush-hatred" I see out there.

John Kerry, on the other hand, strikes me as too synthetic and fabricated. When he says things like "we are already getting reports" that Republicans are planning on supressing the Black vote, I just don't believe him. It irritates me, and I don't believe that HE believes that stuff. At the same time, I agree that it is possible he's a great guy-- I don't know. I never met him!

Most of what we end up voting for/against is based on emotion rather than Fact. And Dan Rather or Sam Donaldson aren't going to change that, I assure you.

Ryan, Do you mean the Oliver Willis who's also known as Fatrios?

The difference is that Oliver works for the Media Matters, a left-wing organization founded by David Brock, that noted straight shooter. (As an interesting aside, Duncan Black's (aka, Atrios) bio on the Media Matters site doesn't mention his website.)

Ryan, there are big differences between the swift boat guys and these forgeries.

First, the Kerry campaign asked us to ask the men who served with him in Viet Nam what they thought of him. We asked, they told us. You don't have to believe more than 200 men who lived together with Kerry 30+ years ago, but Edwards clearly told us their opinion was important.

Second, no one has accused the swift boat guys of creating forgeries.

Third, Kerry's re-enacting himself running around after battles are over is simply weird. The man is weird. That's all there is to it.

Oh, maybe there's more. Maybe his collaborating with enemy communists is important too.

Kerry meeting with communists is disturbing.
He is wierd. And there was a good piece on CNN detailing Kerry's time in Georgetown prior to going to war, when he was supposedly asking around as to whether or not going to war and then protesting it would help jump start a political career. that report was an eye-opener, and credible because it used tapes from the Oval Office conversations between Nixon and his top advisors to detail some of Kerry's actions and their subsequent responses.

While you're feeling sarcastic though, Mike, there is one other thing that may give you pause, which has been detailed in countless books, articles, and one fine film, that whole Bush in bed with the Saudis thing... you know, the guys who have sponsored Islamist terrorism for the last 20 years, the same Evil we are supposed to be fighting. (I don't know how many French Communist Party Members were on any of the 4 flights that crashed on sept 11th. Don't remember seeing that statistic on 9/12/01). So you pick which is the bigger traitor to the flag.

And the Swift boat vets weren't accused of forgery, but they are accused coordinating their first, second, and thirdhand accounts, which makes it inherently impossible for each man to be telling the truth of what he knows and experienced. So, you know, not a forgery, but they're full of shit too. Nuances, Mike. Nuances make all the difference.

Ryan: If the SBVT allegations are all untrue, why has the Kerry campaign already made admissions that Christmas in Cambodia is a fabrication and that at least one of the Purple Hearts was for an unintentional self inflicted wound, a circumstance under which Max Cleland refused a PH, despite having three limbs ripped from his body? What about the admissions made on the Bronx Star, where Kerry has grossly exaggerated the circumstances under which he was awarded the medal? It bothers you not, that Kerry left Vietnam very early due to three Purple Hearts, at least one of which was self inflicted, and was never hospitalized? He is a caricature of the Maj. Frank Burns caricature.
Kerry's nomination was an insult to every man and women who has ever served.

Ryan, I followed your advice and went to oliverwillis.com, because I try to keep an open mind so I can hold an informed opinion. Unfortunately, it was difficult to take the site very seriously when the first thing I noticed was a poll to determine who would win a bar fight between the Bush and Kerry daughters, and then there was the words "lies", "false" or "malarkey" in the links to conservative opinions. Many of my conservative friends tell me they can't stand to listen to Kerry or the Democrats, and I'll tell you what I tell them. If you don't take the time to listen (or read) firsthand what the other side says, your opinion is not worth much. Based on the things you've said, I wonder how much of your opinion is based on firsthand knowledge. Have you read "Unfit For Command"? Have you heard the White House spokesman say that the president did not have to take the last physical because he was going to Alabama and would not be flying there? Have you read any of the detailed accounts of the president's service in the guard? Do you know how many YEARS he served and how many hours above the requirements he actually put in? Have you heard the president say that Sen. Kerry served his country honorably and that his service was greater because he came under fire and the president did not? Have you heard the president say that all of the 527's should be stopped, including the Swift Boat Vets (an opinion I don't share)? Are you aware that there are many more significant and numerous connections between the Kerry campaign and the Democrat leaning 527's? Are you aware that there are a lot of people who have moved around between the Kerry campaign, the DNC and the Democrat 527's?

I am one of the few people who actually watched the O.J. trial from beginning to end, and I can not tell you how shocked I was to see how it was reported in the media. It was like they were not watching the same trial. I went into the trial thinking O.J. was guilty, but the prosecution presented a terrible case and the defense easily proved "reasonable doubt" to any objective person. I could not have voted to convict O.J. based on the evidence presented at the trial, and I am a white female, so not racially biased. Yet, most white Americans are convinced that O.J. "got away with murder" because of black jurors. That's when I first realized that I could not trust or rely on information from the media when it comes to forming important opinions.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but wouldn't it be better if we'd acquire them through the filters of our own ears and eyes rather than through the biased filters of others who may have an agenda? After all, having heard the arguments from the other side, we will either change our mind or have even more confidence and support for our original opinion. It is my experience that a lot of people, liberal or conservative, just are not willing to hear both sides objectively before forming an opinion, and I think that is sad. No one is right or wrong 100% of the time. Placing one's party loyalty over recognizing what is right and wrong or fair and unfair is not in the best interest of our country, no matter which "side" does it. That's what Dan Rather lost sight of and what we as Americans need to hold CBS accountable for.

Ryan, in case you didn't know, the Saudi government is our ally. There are many in that country who aren't good friends, but there are a lot of people in this country who don't think Jane Fonda was a traitor either.

The Saudis let us stage our military in their country for the past dozen years and more. So what's the big deal with the Saudis? There's nothing wrong with selling oil. We like oil and buy it, too.

I see nothing wrong with a meeting of a couple hundred men to decide if they want to put their names and reputations on the line. I remember John Hancock and a bunch of others having a meeting in the late 18th century to put their names on the line too. But I don't suppose you'll be calling the Declaration of Independence a bad thing because of it.

It's not the meeting that is good or bad. It's the result of the meeting. And more than 200 men who were there are a pretty reliable source compared to a man who is documented as having lied repeatedly.

You missed the BEST paragraphs:

Then the bloggers went to work. From the four corners of humanity experts started deconstructing the "truth" that CBS had presented. [For example,] Who knew that there are experts who specialize just in the history of IBM selectric typing balls. ...

I LOVE IT !!

As each of these experts added their information to one blog, other bloggers would monitor it, pass it on, add a new fact, reorganize the analysis, synthesize new information. If new information proved wrong, it was corrected by yet another expert in the blogosphere. Mistakes were cheerfully admitted and instantly corrected. People who had filled out such forms thirty years ago added their analysis. Both technical and historic information constantly came in — ever-increasing the fullness of understanding on the topic. It was like watching time-lapse photography of a cell dividing and growing. It was as if the very mechanism for establishing truth was a living, pulsating force.

linda, can you take a site more seriously if the title is vodkapundit and eveyr link is referenced by drink types?

As for the rest of your comment, I'll just go with one long YESSSSSSSSS. I'm trying to answer every question with just the one YES because YES, I do realize each and every thing you say is valid. For instance, the White House Spokesman Bartlett did SAY that W didn't have to take the physical because he was leaving for Alabama to work on a campaign. Have you heard President Bush say he can't remember what exactly he did for that campaign that he was so excited to work on? He can't remember where he stayed, where he traveled to, or any substantial event from his time working on the campaign. And for instance, YES, I do know how many years he put in (4) and how many hours above requirements he flew (around 70 over if I'm not mistaken, but I'm fuzzy on that). However, did you also know that EVERYONE ELSE in his unit was required to serve THE SAME amount of time? So are you attempting to give W credit for doing some shit he's supposed to do? Well I showed up for work for four years straight and I don't recall being told it was exceptional. And YES, I did hear the President decry 527's, THREE WEEKS into the SBV ads running. It was a show, it was politics, and if you think it was anything other than soundbite politics you're kidding yourself. And YES, Kerry's campaign is just as connected to 527's and the incestuous world of fundraising and media propagation as Bush's. I'm on here pleading for a reality check, not for a Kerry election. The BLIND Bush-Love is just as gross as the BLIND bush hate, as witnessed by the people who still vehemently believe that Iraq has ANY tie to 9/11, Al-Queda, or threats against our well-being, and the people who see no danger in the Bush-Saudi family/business ties in spite of the Saudi's support of religious extremeism in Saudi Arabia and abroad.

And finally, YES, I watch the very conservative, very disgusting Fox'News' more rabidly than I watch any other news source, I read every political blog there is on both sides, and I *try* to read every political book I can get my hands on. At heart I am journalist first and nothing interests or depresses me more than the Great Wacthdog, which is why I blog in the first place. So anything of mine you read is coming from an informed source.

Finally, do you really believe, for even a second, the President reflects glowingly on John Kerry's record in Vietnam, as if he has no part in the shameless Kerry bashing? It's hard to take this discussion seriosuly if you're going to cite such two-faced assanine comments from W as evidence of him somehow being above the frey.

Ryan, I found your "blind" and "drink" references most amusing, since I am blind and use a screen reading software program to access the net, so did not realize the vodka reference until I saved the link, as I had linked from another site. You are not correctly informed regarding the president's service, but I doubt that is of any real interest to you. So "yes" means you read "Unfit For Command"? I have to admit that surprises me. Obviously you put the 911 Commission Report in the "blind Bush love" category. Perhaps you could be taken more seriously as a "journalist" if your journalistic endeavors were supported with more accurate facts and a lot fewer invectives. Anger and sarcasm does little to further any agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Wishing you well as I try to stay above the "fray".