Black Eye: Dan Rather and the Birth of Fake News

Jan 2015
37,899
9,918
Great State of Texas
#72
Except that it wasn't 100% fake. A close examination of the interviews with people who worked in that office paints a different picture. Basically that the information is correct, but that someone made a new version of a memo that they were forced to destroy a few years prior.
...​
But while Knox greatly undermines the documentation of the CBS reporting, it is important for critics to recognize that she corroborates the substance of that reporting. “The information in them is correct,” she told the New York Times (9/15/04). “It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together. That “someone,” a report in Newsweek (9/30/04) suggested, may have been Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard lieutenant colonel who has charged that Bush’s Guard records were culled in 1997 to eliminate “anything there that will embarrass the [then] governor” (Dallas Morning News , 2/11/04). While these charges were dismissed by the White House at the time, if Burkett is the source of memos that accurately reflect the thinking of Bush’s commander, that would support the notion that Burkett had access to National Guard files that no longer seem to exist. An anonymous person at CBS told the Times — 9/15/04– that Burkett was a source for the network’s reporting, but did not say that he provided the memos.​

Of course, Rather et al should have figured out that the documents weren't authentic, even though most of the reasons given (that Times Roman didn't exist on typewriters, that typewriters didn't have superscript letters, etc.) all turned out to be false. With lots of people corroborating what was written in them as true it's not too much of a stretch to see how they were fooled.

The real fake news of the story is that Bush and Co. were able to sweep aside a story because they figured out that the document containing all that true information was actually a copy that was typed later. It was masterful misdirection, and it worked.
Of course it wasn't.

Bleat, bleat ....
 
Jan 2015
37,899
9,918
Great State of Texas
#74
Even for a young child that would be a pathetic response. Sad when someone can’t formulate an adult response and tries to hide behind “bleat bleat”. How old are you, anyway?
You can post all the Leftist propaganda you want ....

That doesn't mean we have to treat it as anything other than BS propaganda.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
11,760
12,703
Work
#75
You can post all the Leftist propaganda you want ....

That doesn't mean we have to treat it as anything other than BS propaganda.
You can cover your eyes and pretend that you can't see that the person who broke the story to the "fake news" NY Times about the falsified documents that Dan Rather used (that's right, NYTimes broke the story) also said that all the information contained in them was true, but that the documents were fakes. It's well documented though. I love how when "fake news" says something you like, it's real, but the second that same source even within the same story says something you don't like, it becomes "BS propaganda" again. So it's real news that the documents were forged, but it's fake news that the information contained in them was true. You must get tired from all those mental gymnastics.

I really don't care to hold your hand through all these scary thoughts that make you uncomfortable. You are free to go on living in your padded dreamland, completely safe from anything that suggests you might be wrong. Education is your friend, but I can't force you to become friendly with it.
 
Sep 2017
4,414
5,347
Massachusetts
#76
So you called me a moron, a cripple, a snowflake, a retard. Is that how my "betters" debate?


The only thing missing is you crying and claiming I am attacking you, and you whining about a spelling error. "counselor".


Let me ask you a question counselor. Lets say I retained your services and needed your advice on the idea I had to retain and store classified information from my .gov contracts on my personal server.

What would your advice be? and why?

que insults, deflection, non answer, and crying victim.
Hahahahaheheheheaaa! You just can't resist, can you? You want to stop the beating you're taking by running away and claiming you're letting me have the last word, but then I hurt your feelings and you come whining back into the thread.

Anyway, yes, obviously this is the way your betters debate. If you'd like to have a higher quality of betters, you'll need to float up at least part-way from the bottom of that barrel, because you're making it way too easy for me to come away looking superior.

As for your rhetorical question, if you came to me about setting up a personal server for classified information and government contracts, I'd tell you that you should talk to a lawyer with expertise in classified information if you want to know how to handle it. As for the government contracts, though, people store them on personal servers all the time.

Anyway, since your goal here is to smear Clinton, I'll point out that she didn't set up that personal server for classified information. She set it up for her NON-CLASSIFIED communications. Her intention was to use it only for non-classified communications, with other channels used for the classified stuff. That's why even a right-wing hack like Comey had to grudgingly admit his witch hunt had found no basis for indictment. The vast majority of her communications on that server included only non-classified information, and there's no evidence that for the rest she knowingly or intentionally trafficked in non-classified information there.

Now, I answered your question, let's see if you'll answer mine. Among high-ranking officials who regularly have access to classified information, what percentage of emails in their servers that aren't cleared for classified information have at least some information that is classified? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd bet my life that the answer is above 0% -- that inevitably mistakes get made by themselves or others that wind up with classified information accidentally being transmitted through non-secure means.

Now, if you wanted to make a case against Clinton, absent any smoking gun showing that she knowingly and intentionally transmitted such information that way, you'd need to establish "gross negligence." And that would mean establishing the usual standard of care, to see if she fell well short of it. If a typical person in a role like hers has, say, a 0.1% rate at which their non-secure emails have classified information in them (due to their own errors or those of people corresponding with them), and Clinton's rate is 1%, then she was screwing up ten times more than normal, and you could make a strong case she (or those around her) must have been grossly negligent. If, on the other hand, the average error rate is 0.1%, and hers was 0.01%, then not only wasn't she negligent, but it looks like she (or those around her) were abnormally cautious.

That's the kind of analysis they would have done if the goal were really to understand whether Clinton did something wrong: sample the emails of others in comparable positions, so you have a benchmark against which to measure Clinton's behavior. But they didn't do that. Instead, they went with mere anecdotes, without any context. Why? Well, I suspect it's because the hack Republican who ran the FBI at the time suspected that Clinton would wind up looking good if you compared her behavior to that of Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, etc.

As a rough analogy, imagine if you were trying to determine if a fielder in baseball was error prone. If you took the approach the Clinton investigation took, you'd just compile a list of all his errors over four years and say that proves he's error prone. That approach would make sense if your goal weren't actually to assess his fielding, but rather to smear him for unrelated reasons. And you'd have plenty to work with, when it comes to any regular starter. Even a perennial Gold Glove winner would compile dozens of errors over that time. A more sensible approach would be a statistical comparison to others at his position. If he had 30 errors in four years, and the average starter at his position had 50, he looks good.
 
Jul 2011
46,875
8,298
NYC
#78
Hahahahaheheheheaaa! You just can't resist, can you? You want to stop the beating you're taking by running away and claiming you're letting me have the last word, but then I hurt your feelings and you come whining back into the thread.

Anyway, yes, obviously this is the way your betters debate. If you'd like to have a higher quality of betters, you'll need to float up at least part-way from the bottom of that barrel, because you're making it way too easy for me to come away looking superior.

As for your rhetorical question, if you came to me about setting up a personal server for classified information and government contracts, I'd tell you that you should talk to a lawyer with expertise in classified information if you want to know how to handle it. As for the government contracts, though, people store them on personal servers all the time.

Anyway, since your goal here is to smear Clinton, I'll point out that she didn't set up that personal server for classified information. She set it up for her NON-CLASSIFIED communications. Her intention was to use it only for non-classified communications, with other channels used for the classified stuff. That's why even a right-wing hack like Comey had to grudgingly admit his witch hunt had found no basis for indictment. The vast majority of her communications on that server included only non-classified information, and there's no evidence that for the rest she knowingly or intentionally trafficked in non-classified information there.

Now, I answered your question, let's see if you'll answer mine. Among high-ranking officials who regularly have access to classified information, what percentage of emails in their servers that aren't cleared for classified information have at least some information that is classified? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd bet my life that the answer is above 0% -- that inevitably mistakes get made by themselves or others that wind up with classified information accidentally being transmitted through non-secure means.

Now, if you wanted to make a case against Clinton, absent any smoking gun showing that she knowingly and intentionally transmitted such information that way, you'd need to establish "gross negligence." And that would mean establishing the usual standard of care, to see if she fell well short of it. If a typical person in a role like hers has, say, a 0.1% rate at which their non-secure emails have classified information in them (due to their own errors or those of people corresponding with them), and Clinton's rate is 1%, then she was screwing up ten times more than normal, and you could make a strong case she (or those around her) must have been grossly negligent. If, on the other hand, the average error rate is 0.1%, and hers was 0.01%, then not only wasn't she negligent, but it looks like she (or those around her) were abnormally cautious.

That's the kind of analysis they would have done if the goal were really to understand whether Clinton did something wrong: sample the emails of others in comparable positions, so you have a benchmark against which to measure Clinton's behavior. But they didn't do that. Instead, they went with mere anecdotes, without any context. Why? Well, I suspect it's because the hack Republican who ran the FBI at the time suspected that Clinton would wind up looking good if you compared her behavior to that of Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, etc.

As a rough analogy, imagine if you were trying to determine if a fielder in baseball was error prone. If you took the approach the Clinton investigation took, you'd just compile a list of all his errors over four years and say that proves he's error prone. That approach would make sense if your goal weren't actually to assess his fielding, but rather to smear him for unrelated reasons. And you'd have plenty to work with, when it comes to any regular starter. Even a perennial Gold Glove winner would compile dozens of errors over that time. A more sensible approach would be a statistical comparison to others at his position. If he had 30 errors in four years, and the average starter at his position had 50, he looks good.


As for your rhetorical question, if you came to me about setting up a personal server for classified information and government contracts, I'd tell you that you should talk to a lawyer with expertise in classified information if you want to know how to handle it. As for the government contracts, though, people store them on personal servers all the time.

At least you admit I am your better at this area of law.


the rest. tl;dr


you are ignorant, arrogantly ignorant on this matter and a blind tribalist. You say to me you cant speak on the law but then tell me that she didn't break the law. you can't keep your stories straight.


You should type longer responses to me, I love wasting your time, "counselor".
 
Sep 2017
4,414
5,347
Massachusetts
#80
At least you admit I am your better at this area of law.
As you know, I admitted no such thing. That's just your go-to coward's move of pretending I made an admission that you know you invented. Try harder, child.

You say to me you cant speak on the law but then tell me that she didn't break the law.
It's conceivable she broke some law I don't know about, since I'm not an expert in the area. However, given that the usual right-wing stooges have been throwing legal references at me for three years now, insisting they've finally found a law she broke, and every single time it turns out they're wrong, I feel confident enough to say she didn't break the law, because if she did they'd have found something by now.
 

Similar Discussions