Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Hasib

Top executives lose job over Bush comment

Recommended Posts

Jan. 11, 2005. 06:30 AM

 

Heads roll at CBS over Bush report

Network's probe blames staffers' 'myopic zeal'

 

Four big heads — but not the fat talking one called Dan Rather — are rolling at CBS. **For those who dont know CBS is a TV news station in U.S./Canada**

 

The axings come after an independent study found "myopic zeal" was behind last September's questionable 60 Minutes Wednesday report on gaps in President George W. Bush's National Guard service records.

 

Yesterday, CBS announced that Mary Mapes, who produced the story about Bush getting "special treatment," was fired. Senior broadcast producer Mary Murphy, executive producer Josh Howard and Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs, have all been asked to resign.

 

Rather, who hosted the segment, stops fronting The CBS Evening News in March, but will stay at the network.

 

Although the Rather "made the same errors of credulity and over-enthusiasm that beset many of his colleagues," and "defended the story overzealously afterwards," said CBS chair Leslie Moonves in a statement, his quitting the anchor chair means "any further action would not be appropriate."

 

Moonves also announced changes in journalistic practices at the CBS News, which lags behind ABC and NBC in the ratings — although its 60 Minutes continues to be a top moneymaker.

 

The scandal, dubbed "Rather-gate" by the right-wing bloggers who attacked the Sept. 8 edition of 60 Minutes, focused on CBS's use of four unauthenticated memos detailing Bush's suspension from flying. One of the memos also stated that Bush's superiors were pressured from above to "sugar coat" his spotty service record.

 

Within hours of the memos hitting the air, the blogosphere erupted with debates about typefaces in 1972 and attacks on CBS's supposed "liberal bias."

 

But CBS defended the segment, and the story, which broke during a close and contentious presidential campaign, dominated the headlines until Rather reluctantly apologized Sept. 20.

 

Two days later, the network appointed an independent panel led by former U.S. Attorney General Thornburgh and former Associated Press president Louis Boccardi, who deconstructed and dissected CBS's actions.

 

Their report runs 234 pages, not counting 47 exhibits and four appendices.

 

Although they were unable "to conclude with absolute certainty" as to the authenticity of the memos, they describe a "perfect storm" of factors that led to the seriously flawed segment. Among them: "the combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network's news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the Segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles ..."

 

But, adds the report, "(T)he `perfect storm' analogy cannot be used as an excuse. The fact is that basic journalistic steps were not carried out in a manner consistent with accurate and fair reporting, leading to countless misstatements and omissions in the reporting."

 

What made it all worse was that CBS News "compounded that failure with a `rigid and blind' defense."

 

As a result, the panel recommends that CBS create a new "Standards and Practices" person reporting directly to the president of CBS News, give up scoops if they can't be vetted "to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy," and keep senior management informed of the identities of any anonymous sources used in reports.

 

(All of which should be motherhood in this business. Indeed, it is policy at the Star, which will shortly name a new ombud to replace the recently retired Don Sellar. The only other ombuds in Canada are at CBC, which publishes its journalistic standards and practices on its website. There are no ombuds at any other TV network in North America.)

 

Despite CBS confessing to its screw-up, the conservative websites devoted to trashing Rather and the so-called "liberal media" were not satisfied.

 

Angry that the report dismisses alleged liberal bias as a factor, BoycottCBS(contact admin if its a beneficial link) founder Michael Paranzino posted his reaction which said, in part, "The reforms suggested by the CBS News-paid `independent' panel will help CBS News, but they will not solve the fundamental problem, which is that CBS News is dominated from page boy to president with Manhattan liberals who are out of touch with mainstream America."

 

"This is bigger than Dan Rather. This is bigger than CBS News. This is about the news and the new relationship — the conversation — journalism must learn to have with the public, or the public will go have it without them," noted media critic Jeff Jarvis.

 

CBS also came in for heavy criticism on U.S. cable news networks yesterday. Fox News, whose credibility is hardly unchallenged, ignored the tsunami, California flooding, bombings in Iraq and other big news in order to devote hours to CBS's "black eye."

 

Most of the top liberal weblogs were silent on the subject, preferring to zero in on "Payola-gate." (Enough with the "—gates" already!) It's the scandal — on which right-whiners are mute, by the way — exposed last week by USA Today.

 

It reported the Bush administration "paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote (an education) law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."

 

Obsessed with the subject, blogger Oliver Willis notes: "In the rightie-verse, sloppy journalism by a past-his-prime anchor is more important that propaganda illegally fuelled by tax dollars.

 

"`Liberal media!' Ugga-booga!"

 

This right-vs.-left, is too! is not! media debate will go on for a long time. But wouldn't it be cool if somebody actually reported, based on solid journalism, exactly where Bush was in 1972?

 

SOURCE: "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.thestar(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1105397411672&call_pageid=968332188492"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.thestar(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492[/url]

**you may to log in to see the story**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

It was bad journalism on the part of CBS. Someone fakes a document and they reported and defended what the document said. They really dropped the ball and now are paying the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is FOx going to fire it's staff? Never.... it will cease to exist without fake & twisted journalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over which report in particular do you think someone should be fired at Fox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, everyone here loves to say that FOX lies/reports false news etc, yet I have never seen an example of it. I would like it if someone here could post a Fox article that either lies or is wrong, and critique it. I am not trying to defend Fox, just asking you to back up your accuzations is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over which report in particular do you think someone should be fired at Fox?

Well FOX is a different kind of propaganda, it's like Talk Radio - It make's people feel good about themselves and their country and panders to their sensitivities regarding fear. I mean, here in Europe we just laugh at FOX and publications like the WSJ, they are too ridiculous to even merit debate, that said, they are dangerous in their own way, convincing people of the false climate of fear Americans have been living in for the past 200 years, this, along with shows like CBS with their ridiculous 'Fallen Heroes' segment convinces people of the false pretexts to go to War. FOX can insult Europe all it wants, but we wouldn't tolerate something like FOX for a second in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, everyone here loves to say that FOX lies/reports false news etc, yet I have never seen an example of it.  I would like it if someone here could post a Fox article that either lies or is wrong, and critique it.  I am not trying to defend Fox, just asking you to back up your accuzations is all.

Well I'll give you an example:

THE PRICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING

 

It turns out that standing for the public good is an expensive proposition. Ask Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two investigative reporters fired by Fox News after they refused to water down a story on rBGH, a synthetic hormone widely used in the United States (but banned in Europe and Canada) to rev up cows’ metabolism and boost their milk production. Because of the increased production, the cows suffer from mastitis, a painful infection of the udders. Antibiotics must then be injected, which find their way into the milk, and ultimately reduce people’s resistance to disease.

 

Fox demanded that they rewrite the story, and ultimately fired Akre and Wilson. Akre and Wilson subsequently sued Fox under Florida’s whistle-blower statute. They proved to a jury that the version of the story Fox would have had them put on the air was false, distorted or slanted. Akre was awarded $425,000. Then Fox appealed, the verdict was overturned on a technicality, and Akre lost her award. [For more information on the case see foxbghsuit]

I mean, what surprises me most is how much the average Republican bangs on about Regulation when it is actually a good thing. The EU regulates businesses to death, and I'm glad for it, it teaches them a lesson not to mess with European Socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the title of this thread is inaccurate. It was not a "comment" that got them fired, but the report and their handling of it. Read the investigative report and you will find that these guys deliberately disobeyed orders to not air this report.

 

Tied in with the first, secondly, these guys were fired only because they disobeyed their superiors who felt the story lacked credibility. Yet these "brave" reporters felt it necessary to show this to the world as hard and fast facts. Insubordination usually gets you fired.

 

Lastly, as Greek pointed out, when Fox had an issue like this, they "fired" the people invovled. Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lastly, as Greek pointed out, when Fox had an issue like this, they "fired" the people invovled.  Next.

It's a really interesting case actually - You should do some research on it. They intially tried to bribe the Journalists who replied with 'We report the truth' - The FOX executive replied to that 'We just paid 2 Billion dollars for this Station - The News is what we say it is'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yank,

 

You know, everyone here loves to say that FOX lies/reports false news etc, yet I have never seen an example of it.  I would like it if someone here could post a Fox article that either lies or is wrong, and critique it.  I am not trying to defend Fox, just asking you to back up your accuzations is all.

 

You might be interested to watch the movie "outfoxed" where the network's own footage is used against them to show how they manipulate the presentation of their stories...or at least refuse to acknowledge opposing viewpoints...hence trashing the words "fair & balanced"

 

Peace out

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a really interesting case actually - You should do some research on it. They intially tried to bribe the Journalists who replied with 'We report the truth' - The FOX executive replied to that 'We just paid 2 Billion dollars for this Station - The News is what we say it is'.

 

:D

 

I actually studied that case in media. it was very intersting indeed. I ended up writing an essay based on Rupert Mudorch, owner of FOX.

 

Anyways heres what i wrote on the case- its got info of the case.

 

Another example of Rupert Murdoch controlling what is been relayed to the audience is in an article, which was written by Nick Cohen on The Observer, 5th July 1998. The article explains how two reporters for WTVT news channel of Florida had investigated on a large U.S drugs company and found out from their investigation that the company had failed to inform the public of a side effect that they had found on a drug, which the company had made. The two journalists were set to broadcast their report on the station when the drugs company rang Fox TV owned by Rupert Murdoch who also happened to own WTVT under Fox TV. The news station were forced to review the report written by the journalists and although the station had no qualms with the report, Fox TV did and refused the report to be broadcasted until it was changed. The journalists were forced to rewrite their report seventy times and include the drug company’s version of the story. The journalists even complained to one of Rupert Murdoch’s managers who had been sent to the news station. Nick Cohen wrote on the article in reference to the manager David Boylan who had been sent down to the station:

 

 

“Boylan’s reply had broken with all the traditions of the Murdoch Empire. In a moment of insane candour, he told an unvarnished truth, which should be framed and stuck on the top of every television set: “We paid $3billion for these television stations,� he snapped. “We’ll decide what news is. News is what we say it is.� - Nick Cohen, The Observer (5/7/98) (This is the quote Greek Cypriot is talking about)

 

The journalists refused many times till eventually they were sacked. What was interesting about this I think was the reason behind Fox TV’s decision. It turned out that one of the major clients of Rupert Murdoch’s PR Company Actmedia was the drugs company in question, which is why they rang up Rupert to make sure that the information was not leaked to the public.

 

 

anyways things like these are not uncommon in the american media. Coparation own most things and if you say/do anything which damages their interests, even if it the truth or the right thing, then your off.

 

freedom of speech? yea right :D

Edited by summer_girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan. 11, 2005. 06:30 AM

 

Heads roll at CBS over Bush report

Network's probe blames staffers' 'myopic zeal'

 

Four big heads  but not the fat talking one called Dan Rather  are rolling at CBS. **For those who dont know CBS is a TV news station in U.S./Canada**

 

The axings come after an independent study found "myopic zeal" was behind last September's questionable 60 Minutes Wednesday report on gaps in President George W. Bush's National Guard service records.

 

Yesterday, CBS announced that Mary Mapes, who produced the story about Bush getting "special treatment," was fired. Senior broadcast producer Mary Murphy, executive producer Josh Howard and Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs, have all been asked to resign.

 

Rather, who hosted the segment, stops fronting The CBS Evening News in March, but will stay at the network.

 

Although the Rather "made the same errors of credulity and over-enthusiasm that beset many of his colleagues," and "defended the story overzealously afterwards," said CBS chair Leslie Moonves in a statement, his quitting the anchor chair means "any further action would not be appropriate."

 

Moonves also announced changes in journalistic practices at the CBS News, which lags behind ABC and NBC in the ratings  although its 60 Minutes continues to be a top moneymaker.

 

The scandal, dubbed "Rather-gate" by the right-wing bloggers who attacked the Sept. 8 edition of 60 Minutes, focused on CBS's use of four unauthenticated memos detailing Bush's suspension from flying. One of the memos also stated that Bush's superiors were pressured from above to "sugar coat" his spotty service record.

 

Within hours of the memos hitting the air, the blogosphere erupted with debates about typefaces in 1972 and attacks on CBS's supposed "liberal bias."

 

But CBS defended the segment, and the story, which broke during a close and contentious presidential campaign, dominated the headlines until Rather reluctantly apologized Sept. 20.

 

Two days later, the network appointed an independent panel led by former U.S. Attorney General Thornburgh and former Associated Press president Louis Boccardi, who deconstructed and dissected CBS's actions.

 

Their report runs 234 pages, not counting 47 exhibits and four appendices.

 

Although they were unable "to conclude with absolute certainty" as to the authenticity of the memos, they describe a "perfect storm" of factors that led to the seriously flawed segment. Among them: "the combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network's news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the Segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles ..."

 

But, adds the report, "(T)he `perfect storm' analogy cannot be used as an excuse. The fact is that basic journalistic steps were not carried out in a manner consistent with accurate and fair reporting, leading to countless misstatements and omissions in the reporting."

 

What made it all worse was that CBS News "compounded that failure with a `rigid and blind' defense."

 

As a result, the panel recommends that CBS create a new "Standards and Practices" person reporting directly to the president of CBS News, give up scoops if they can't be vetted "to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy," and keep senior management informed of the identities of any anonymous sources used in reports.

 

(All of which should be motherhood in this business. Indeed, it is policy at the Star, which will shortly name a new ombud to replace the recently retired Don Sellar. The only other ombuds in Canada are at CBC, which publishes its journalistic standards and practices on its website. There are no ombuds at any other TV network in North America.)

 

Despite CBS confessing to its screw-up, the conservative websites devoted to trashing Rather and the so-called "liberal media" were not satisfied.

 

Angry that the report dismisses alleged liberal bias as a factor, BoycottCBS founder Michael Paranzino posted his reaction which said, in part, "The reforms suggested by the CBS News-paid `independent' panel will help CBS News, but they will not solve the fundamental problem, which is that CBS News is dominated from page boy to president with Manhattan liberals who are out of touch with mainstream America."

 

"This is bigger than Dan Rather. This is bigger than CBS News. This is about the news and the new relationship  the conversation  journalism must learn to have with the public, or the public will go have it without them," noted media critic Jeff Jarvis.

 

CBS also came in for heavy criticism on U.S. cable news networks yesterday. Fox News, whose credibility is hardly unchallenged, ignored the tsunami, California flooding, bombings in Iraq and other big news in order to devote hours to CBS's "black eye."

 

Most of the top liberal weblogs were silent on the subject, preferring to zero in on "Payola-gate." (Enough with the "â€â€Âgates" already!) It's the scandal  on which right-whiners are mute, by the way  exposed last week by USA Today.

 

It reported the Bush administration "paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote (an education) law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."

 

Obsessed with the subject, blogger Oliver Willis notes: "In the rightie-verse, sloppy journalism by a past-his-prime anchor is more important that propaganda illegally fuelled by tax dollars.

 

"`Liberal media!' Ugga-booga!"

 

This right-vs.-left, is too! is not! media debate will go on for a long time. But wouldn't it be cool if somebody actually reported, based on solid journalism, exactly where Bush was in 1972?

 

SOURCE: "thestar/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1105397411672&call_pageid=968332188492"]thestar/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492[/url]

**you may to log in to see the story**

CBS' COWARDICE AND CONFLICTS BEHIND PURGE

 

Network's Craven Back-Down on Bush Draft Dodge Report Sure to Get a Standing

Rove-ation at White House

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

By Greg Palast

 

"Independent" my . CBS' cowardly purge of five journalists who exposed George

Bush's dodging of the Vietnam War draft was done under cover of what the network

laughably called an "Independent Review Panel."

 

The "panel" was just two guys as qualified for the job as they are for landing

the space shuttle: Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi.

 

Remember Dickie Thornburgh? He was on the Bush 41 Administration's payroll. His

grand accomplishment as Bush's Attorney General was to whitewash the

investigation of the Exxon Valdez Oil spill, letting the oil giant off the hook

on big damages. Thornburgh's fat pay as counsel to Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, the

Washington law-and-lobbying outfit, is substantially due to his job as a Bush

retainer. This is the kind of stinky conflict of interest that hardly suggests

"independent." Why not just appoint Karl Rove as CBS' grand inquisitor and be

done with it?

 

Then there's Boccardi, not exactly a prince of journalism. This is the gent who,

as CEO of the Associated Press, spiked his own wire service's exposure of Oliver

North and his traitorous dealings with the Ayatollah Khomeini. Legendary AP

investigative reporters Robert Parry and Brian Barger found their stories outing

the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 stopped by their bosses. They did not know that

Boccardi was on those very days deep in the midst of talks with North,

participating in the conspiracy.

 

Today I spoke with Parry at his home in Virginia. He was sympathetic to Boccardi

who at the time was trying to spring AP reporter Terry Anderson held hostage in

Iran. But to do so, Boccardi joined, unwittingly, in a criminal conspiracy to

trade guns for hostages. He then spiked his own news agency's investigation of

it. Parry later discovered a 1986 email from North to John Poindexter in which

North notes that Boccardi "is supportive of our terropism (sic) policy" and

wants to keep the story "quiet." Poindexter was indicted, then pardoned.

Boccardi was not, and there is no indication he knew he was abetting a crime.

But the AP demoted journalist Barger and forced him to quit for -- the offense

of trying to report the biggest story of the decade. This hardly gives Mr. Spike

the qualification to pass judgment on working journalists.

 

And who are the journalists whom CBS has burned at the corporate stake? The

first lined up for career execution is '60 Minutes' producer Mary Mapes. Besides

the Bush draft dodge story, Mapes produced the exposé of the torture at Abu

Ghraib when other networks had the same material and buried it.

 

I admit to a soft spot for Mapes. Four years ago, BBC Television London

broadcast my report that Jeb Bush had wrongly purged thousands of

African-Americans from the voter rolls, thereby fixing the election for his big

brother. CBS Evening News ran away scared from the story, as did ABC and other

US networks. This year, when Bush tried to repeat the trick, Mapes wanted to put

it on '60 Minutes.' However, after the draft dodge story hullabaloo, that was

not going to happen.

 

And what was the crime committed by Mapes and, let's not forget, Dan Rather,

whose career was also toasted by the story?

 

CBS said, "The Panel found that Mapes ignored information that cast doubt on the

story she had set out to report -- that President Bush had received special

treatment 30 years ago, getting to the [Texas Air National] Guard ahead of many

other applicants …."

 

Well, excuse me, but that story is stone cold solid, irrefutable, backed-up,

sourced, proven to a fare-thee-well. I know, because I'm one of the reporters

who broke that story … way back in 1999, for the Guardian papers of Britain. No

one has challenged the Guardian report, or my follow-up for BBC Television,

whatsoever, though we've begged the White House for a response from our

self-proclaimed "war president."

 

CBS did not "break" this Chicken-Hawk George story; it's just that Dan Rather,

with Mapes' encouragement, found his journalistic soul and the cojones, finally,

after 5 years delay, to report it. Did Bush get special treatment to get into

the Guard? Baby Bush tested in the 25th percentile out of 100. Yet, he leaped

ahead of thousands of other Vietnam evaders because the then-Speaker of the

Texas legislature sent a message to General Craig Rose, head of the Guard, to

let in Little George and a few other sons of well-placed politicos.

 

[see some of the documentation at

"gregpalast/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg"]gregpalast/ulf/documents/dr...odgeblanked.jpg[/url] and a clip from

the BBC Television report at "gregpalast/images/TrailerClips.mov"]gregpalast/images/TrailerClips.mov[/url]]

 

Mapes and Rather did make a mistake, citing a memo which could not be

authenticated. But let's get serious folks: this "Killian" memo had not a darn

thing to do with the story-in-chief -- the President's using his daddy's

connections to duck out of Vietnam. The Killian memo was a goofy little addition

to the story (not included in my Guardian or BBC reports).

 

So CBS inquisitors took this minor error and used it to discredit the story and

ruin careers of reporters who allowed themselves an unguarded moment of courage.

And, crucial to the network's real agenda, this nonsensical distraction allowed

the White House to resurrect the fake reputation of George Bush as Vietnam-era

top gun.

 

CBS executives' model was clearly the hatchet job done on BBC news last year by

the so-called "Hutton Report." In that case, some used-up lordship viciously

attacked the BBC's ballsy uncovering of an official lie: that Saddam Hussein had

weapons of mass destruction. Lord Hutton seized on a minor error by one reporter

to attempt to discredit the entire BBC investigation of governmental mendacity.

 

In Britain, the public stood with the "Beeb." But in my own country, the

American press itself, notably the New York Times, has joined in the lynch mob,

repeating the allegations against the investigative reporters without any

independent verification of the charges whatsoever.

 

I would note that neither CBS nor the New York Times punished a single reporter

for passing on, as hard news, the Bush Administration fibs and whoppers about

Saddam Hussein's nuclear and biological weapons programs. Shameful repetitions

of propaganda produced no resignations -- indeed, picked up an Emmy or two.

 

Yes, I believe heads should roll at CBS: those of the "news" chieftains who for

five years ignored the screaming evidence about George Bush's dodging the draft

during the war in Vietnam.

 

At the top of the network's craven and dead wrong apology to the President is

that cyclopsian CBS eyeball. But I suspect that CBS itself has little interest

in eating its own flesh. This vile spike-after-broadcast serves only its master,

the owner of CBS, Viacom Corporation.

 

"From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a

better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we

believe in, deregulation and so on…. I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I

do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a

Democratic one."

 

That more-than-revealing statement, made weeks before the presidential election,

by Sumner Redstone, billionaire honcho of CBS' parent company, wasn't reported

on CBS. Why not? Someone should investigate.

 

Viacom needs the White House to bless its voracious and avaricious need to bust

current ownership and trade rules to add to its global media monopoly. Placing

the severed heads of reporters who would question the Bush mythology on the

White House doorstep will certainly ease the way for Viacom's ambitions.

 

At the least, at the upcoming inaugural parties, CBS' ruler Redstone can expect

that White House occupants will give him a standing Rove-ation.

 

---

Greg Palast's report for BBC Television on the President's evasion of the

military draft can be seen in the BBC documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes,"

updated in a special US edition on DVD. See a segment at

"gregpalast/images/TrailerClips.mov"]gregpalast/images/TrailerClips.mov[/url]. Palast is the author of the

New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." View his writings

GregPalast For interviews, contact media(at)GregPalast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The documents CBS reported on were FAKE. I don't see why so many people are trying to defend those that lost their jobs at CBS, they reported fake news.

 

anyways things like these are not uncommon in the american media. Coparation own most things and if you say/do anything which damages their interests, even if it the truth or the right thing, then your off.

 

freedom of speech? yea right

 

Yes, we do have freedom of speech or people like me would probably not be on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The documents CBS reported on were FAKE.  I don't see why so many people are trying to defend those that lost their jobs at CBS, they reported fake news.

Yes, we do have freedom of speech or people like me would probably not be on this forum.

 

the cbs execs did deserve to get fired. but if the same exec had fake reports abt saddma & cronies then they wouldn't b fired for sure. that's what i m against.

 

btw yank... freedom of speech & being on this forum has nothing to do with eachother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the cbs execs did deserve to get fired. but if the same exec had fake reports abt saddma & cronies then they wouldn't b fired for sure. that's what i m against.

 

What evidence do you have to support this? Any evidence that is forged and portrayed as fact should lead to the termination, if not legal punishment, of the people involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol wheres the freedom of speech now i wonder ??

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly DH.

 

Libel and slander are against the law. One cannot purposely lie to hurt another citizen. Tell the truth all you want though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... freedom of speech & being on this forum has nothing to do with eachother.

 

:D :D :D No truer words were ever spoken, mansoor. That comment made my day. Thanks and .... Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

The documents CBS reported on were FAKE. I don't see why so many people are trying to defend those that lost their jobs at CBS, they reported fake news.

 

Yank, thats how we feel about peeps who insist CNN is reliable. And that Reports given by USA are mis interperted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

You know, everyone here loves to say that FOX lies/reports false news etc, yet I have never seen an example of it.  I would like it if someone here could post a Fox article that either lies or is wrong, and critique it.  I am not trying to defend Fox, just asking you to back up your accuzations is all.

 

you can read more about those two journalists that were fired for refusing to distort their story at their (the journalists) site:

 

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.foxbghsuit(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/bgh1.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.foxbghsuit(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/bgh1.htm[/url]

 

there you can also read the transcripts of their original story and then the final "approved" and very distorted story.

 

there is a documentary titled "The Corporation" ...the journalists' story is on there as well and they go into even more detail in the documentary.

 

Ameera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the problem is that whatever one may pull up documents and such the others will claim its a fake.. its hard nuff to get your hands on these super sensitive documents now you you are asked to prove something and that is even more difficult to do than getting the documents..

 

Its one thing to get a piece of paper.. its quite another thing to have live witnesses come forth and give a testimony!

 

So whats my point? -- that is its not easy to prove these things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×