Greg Palast, Dan Rather and the new symbol of the age....

"Andrew is just a student and still needs a couple of lessons in posing questions properly. (Lesson One: “Wear a grounding wire.”) But Andrew has the next lesson down pat: ask the question they don’t want to hear when they don’t want to hear it. Rather could use a few lessons in journalism himself - from Andrew - about taking the heat for the story." - Greg Palast


Dan Rather's lack of support for his own Texas Air National Guard scandal story in 2006 left me a little dazed, and like many, I frankly thought that the story was full of hot air and moonshine. You know the whole narrative; the documents turned out to be forgeries, there was nothing to it, nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

Well, according to Greg Palast, the story that ran was solid. But the story about why you didn't get the story is even more interesting.

DAN RATHER: TASED AND CONFUSED
The Still-Unreported Story of "Top Gun" George Bush

Monday September 24, 2007

New York- Newly unearthed records reveal that, in 2004, when Americans were in the midst of a brutal electoral battle over whether to reelect a president posing as a war hero, a commanding US reporter, Dan Rather, went AWOL.

Just three months before the election, Rather had a story that might have changed the outcome of that razor-close race. We now know that Dan cut a back-room deal to shut his mouth, grab his ankles, and let his network retract a story he knew to be absolutely true.

In September 2004 when Rather cowered, Bush was riding high in the polls. Now, with Bush's approval ratings are below smallpox, Rather has come out of hiding to shoot at the lame duck. Thanks, Dan.

It began on September 8, 2004, when Rather, on CBS, ran a story that Daddy Bush Senior had, in 1968, put in the fix to get his baby George out of the Vietnam War and into the Texas Air National Guard. Little George then rode out the war defending Houston from Viet Cong attack.

The story is stone-cold solid. I know, because we ran it on BBC Television a year before CBS (see that broadcast here). BBC has never retracted a word of it.

But CBS caved. So did Dan.

That's according to Rather's written confession, his law suit, which is as much a shameful set of admissions as it is a legal complaint. In the suit filed Thursday, Rather tells us that Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, owner of CBS, was "enraged that the [Air Guard] Broadcast had hurt CBS in the eyes of the Bush administration." Viacom then set out to, "divert public attention from the accurate facts reported in the Broadcast concerning President Bush's service (and lack thereof) in the TexANG during the Vietnam War; and enable CBS and Viacom to curry favor with the White House…."

Redstone roared and Dan, hearing his Dark Lord's voice, admits he then "refrained from defending" the truths in the Broadcast. Dan shut his mouth, he confesses, in return for 30 pieces of Viacom silver: a promise that "his contract would be extended."

Had Rather stood up to the Viacommunist thugs and defended his story, President Kerry and our nation could today express gratitude for his public service. Instead, Dan traded the public interest for airtime on 60 Minutes. Yuck.

Now Dan is shocked to find that the network snakes didn't live up to their slimey bargain with him. Well, Dan, that's what happens with snakes. Get in bed with them and wake up slimed. (Lots More.)

Palast is not one to pull punches and he's what Rather used to be; a real, honest-to-gosh Investigative Reporter. He tells the story rather well on the air - I've heard him on a local talk show several times now;
"The Solution Zone." KJFK-1230, 3-4 pm weekdays - except during Baseball Season.

(Boo!)

I'm glad that this lawsuit will bring Conservative suits like Sumner Redstone of Viacom out of their closets of smug denial, but it is a sad and graphic truth that Rather is not suing CBS/Viacom for burning him publicly over a truthful story. He's suing them for breach of promises made regarding compensation for his willingness to take a dive.

It must be nice to build up enough integrity to be able to put a fair market value of seventy million dollars upon it, and apparently everyone does have their price. And it occurs to me that few politicians would be that expensive.

That's what is causing me to wonder furiously what other faint responses to obvious outrages are the result of money and pressure. Have we turned into a nation like Mexico, where "Plomo e Plata" is the bottom line?



For instance, UF student Andrew Meyer was tasered after asking the following question of John Kerry:

“Palast says, You won the 2004 election, isn’t that amazing? There was multiple reports on the day of the election of disenfranchisement of black voters in florida and ohio… How could you concede the election on that day?”

It just doesn't get any better than that, does it, Greg? I mean, how many reporters EVER get a moment like that, recorded on tape? When someone uses your work to speak truth to power while dropping your name and waving your book and becomes a headline due to Power's reaction - that's the working man's Pulitzer!

Greg Palast is the author of “The Necklace-ing of Dan Rather” in the New York Times bestselling book, Armed Madhouse:Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild (Penguin 2007).

Sign up for Palast’s investigative reports at www.GregPalast.com, check out the whole story in the documentary Bush Family Fortunes support the Palast Investigative Fund here.

Jacking a thread at Calling all Wingnuts

Teh boring… at Calling All Wingnuts:

Sometimes the comments are better than the posts: One Named blogicalthought alleges.

"5. Just weeks before the Media Reform Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, you begin to organize liberal bloggers, mainly “Eschatonians” or rather known as “Atriots” who blog for Duncan Black and David Brock of Media Matters, financed by George Soros, to “blogswarm” the issue."

Hm, it's ok by you if Cheney And Coors and Free Republic collude to get out the talking points, I presume. But I guess you feel guilty about that well-known reality, and how all the major players happen to have the same talking points at the same time.

Notice how often the first sin that evildoers accuse others of is the one they are most guilty of? Earlier allegations of corporate shilldom marked "presumably true, pending disproof."

The readers of most leftward/antiauthoritarian blogs realize that if the Sainted Clinton told us what to say - he'd cease to be sainted and become again tainted.

Not that Clinton, Kerry and others don't try to herd us independ, but it sounds a heck of a lot more like respectful pleading, occasional begging and on particularly important occasions, hints of groveling are not unheard of.

Well, actually, to be fair, it's mostly cheerleading. At least with me, that's the sort of spam I get.. Atrios, on the other hand, may well be entertained with quite intriguing offers.

But on the liberal side, it's all very much, "Those are my people and I am their leader! Excuse me, I must follow them!"

The reason why all the lefty blogs are taking this from the same angle is because there is only one angle. Fair comment, good and legal. Disney/ABC, wrong, bad, possibly illegal, certainly stupid. All else - beside the point.

Nobody's arguing with the right for any damn-fool to say any damn-fool thing they care to. We do object to damn-foolishness being presented as fact, but the best response is more and more accurate free speech. Indeed, from a free speech perspective, KSFO is what you would call a "target-rich environment."

Calling it a "boycott" as if that were a bad thing is dumb. Boycotts are perfectly legitimate tactics, one dear to the Right suggests using all the time to punish media they disapprove of. Can we say "Dixie Chicks?" Ooo, I KNEW that we could!

If it HAD been a boycott, I would not object. It just happens that, factually speaking, Spocko made a very significant point of NOT calling for a boycott. Factually, it was a completely different tactic, and one that is obviously both more fair and probably more effective.

All anyone had to do was to read what Spocko actually said, and compare it with what Lee said to know that Lee is, in fact a lazy lyin' bastard who can't be bothered to do his homework and either too stupid or too far wrong to argue against the coming liberal hordes honestly.

Personally, whatever he called it, I didn't give a rat's ass. If corporate America has become too careless to review what they are associating their brands with, ain't no skin off my nose. I'm an unapologetic Libertarian and capitalist, but I'm not a FatCapitalist. The action (and the fun) of real Free Market Capitalism includes watching for such mis-steps - and capitalizing on them.

Yep, had I stumbled across such clips, they would have gone straight to undervalued competitors in the KSFO market. "What's in YOUR wallet?"

But Spocko is more charitable than I. He informed advertisers of what sort of programs were being associated with their brand. And guess what information comes out in the wash? Disney/ABC was MISREPRESENTING the content as being "family friendly." Maybe if it were the Manson Family.

They were lying to their client base, as a matter of corporate policy at some level, and the SLAPP suit against Spocko argues that it was at a higher, rather than at a lower one. Now, I dunno about what the news division at KSFO thinks (or ABC news for that matter,) but to ME, that's news, at least three bells worth. Because we call that "Theft by false pretenses."

While the winger blogs talk about "all but one" account returning to KSFO, that's based on a naked allegation BY KSFO talkers who are, as we have established, famous liars. I'm sure that statistic does not include those who have simply chosen to NOT renew ads, as opposed to pulling them. I'm sure it doesn't include those who said "sorry, but the results we got didn't meet our expectations."

MasterCard's decision - as well as all the others - probably has less to do with the content of the speech and far more with the demographics represented by the speakers. MasterCard (and other advertisors) want "family freindly" programming because families have good credit and are willing to use it. People who live in their parent's basements and call into Lee and Rush - not so likely to have good jobs and good credit. "How gullible do you have to be..." leads to other questions that eventually wander around to issues of unrecoverable debt. LIBERAL talkers and information providers? MUCH more attractive demographics.

I'd say it's likely that advertisers have shifted or are beginning to shift their buys toward Air America, because if the Democracy Now are indicative of the same general demographic, then educated, White. Urban, upper-middle class professionals are much better credit risks than... well the sort that considers Lee Rodgers persuasive.

Miracle fat-burning pills and "become rich by spending in just 30 days" on the other hand, might just perform BETTER in Lee's demographic. You see, it's not about what's said, it's what sorta people listen.

Oh, and as for your non-sequiteur about Mike's "vulgarity" in holding up that infamous sign...

Vulgar, yes. And funny. Very, very funny; the very essence of a GraphicTruth. I've listened to Hannedy and he does indeed suck - and I'm comparing him to O'Rielly, Glenn Beck and other conservatives. Given how long that camera LINGERED, it's pretty clear that the rank and file working stiffs who have to suffer through his excruciating idiocy in order to cash a paycheck pretty much agree that Hannedy Sucks Ass.

And as the joke goes - not particularly well, either.

tag: blogicalthought, Lee Rodgers, Hate Speech, Hate Radio, famous liars, theft by false pretenses

Mouse sez bring it on. Libs show up packin' glueboards.

This is one of those things I would ordinarily consider off my beat; blog wars and talk show wars are "Hard Copy" and "ET" material in my arrogant opinion, akin to gossip about whether or not Rosie and The Donald are really fighting or just hyping their respective ratings. But as the blogswarm spreads across the Internets, it's making navigation difficult in these here "tubes," One particular obstacle to navigation showed up in this comment thread on Echidne of the Snakes. unintentionally brought attention to issues vital to all bloggers - not just Libs, Lefties and Litigants.

It's a bit self-serving to reference a thread in which I gleefully participated... so let us just say that the consensus was that they just had to be a corporate shill. Considering the exact points (and the exact and particular bits of misinformation about "fair use" and "copyright,") I can't imagine what or who else they could be.

(I have yet to be visited by such a corporate shill. Just the odd spammer. I clearly need to work harder.)

Anyway, KSFO's response to all this was to pre-empt three hours of regular programming and devote it to Spocko-slamming. Their management referred to it as their "response."

I wonder how their advertisers feel about that hearty little "fuck you?"

Media Matters - KSFO's Morgan: "I wouldn't describe Friday's show as apologetic by any means"

Go read the Media Matters article for full - and I do mean EXHAUSTIVE context - in contrast to KSFO's blustering and whining about being "taken out of context."

One wonders what context would make it appropriate to require a caller to "call Mohamed a Whore," to refer to Barack Obama as a "Halfrican," or agree with a caller that all mosques in Syria should be blown up by cruise missiles when they are most likely to be full of praying Muslims?

Tell, me do, oh Disney/Viacom/ABC? Explain to us why this sort of speech is something that should not be brought to the attention of your advertisers?

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech - it does not guarantee the right to speak without response or consequence. Anyone who really respected the first amendment - rather than trying to hide behind it - would not have acted in any way that KSFO/ABC/Viacom/Disney have.

But fair use requires me to take this chunk... out of context. (from Media Matters, and quotes from their KSFO transcript.)

During the January 12 program, the hosts certainly did defend many of the inflammatory remarks that, in 2006, San Francisco-based blogger Spocko highlighted on his weblog and in letters to KSFO advertisers, before ABC Inc. issued a cease-and-desist letter that ultimately led to his blog being shut down. Nonetheless, on several occasions throughout the broadcast, the hosts emphasized that they had already apologized for some of the comments in question. For instance, when discussing his October 2005 remarks in which he asked a caller to "[s]ay Allah is a whore" in order to prove he was not a Muslim, host Brian Sussman said, "I realized what I said was over the top. It offended a lot of people. It could be deemed as being highly insensitive. And not only did I apologize once, but I've apologized several times since." Later in the show, Sussman addressed another controversial comment from December 2006 in which he referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as a "Halfrican" -- a term that Morgan repeated. Sussman said on January 12, "[A]gain, this is one that I've apologized for and I've mentioned that my comments were insensitive." He then complained that people "don't want to hear any mea culpa. They don't want to hear any excuse. They don't want to hear any forgiveness or the asking thereof."

Media Matters went to look for the apologies and could not find them. Perhaps there's a script involved that detects liberal readers and adjusts contents accordingly? Hm. I wonder if it can detect First Amendment lawyers?

Even the venerable and Very Professional New York Times has taken notice - and over at DKos, that notice is put into context. The Times has a long memory, and has not escaped the notice of Hate Radio Talkers heard on KSFO.

Their summation was this, and their "slant" on the story may be inferred in these three graphs:

Most of the callers were sympathetic during Friday’s broadcast, but one blogger who has supported Spocko’s cause, Mike Stark, was encouraged to call in. The extended dialogue perhaps can best be summarized by one exchange.

Mr. Stark: “You’ve spoken of the number of apologies you have tried to make. How many apologies does a professional get before they realize they are an incompetent and move on to another line of work?”

KSFO’s Lee Rodgers: “Well I haven’t apologized for anything and I am not going to start with you. How the hell do you like that, creep?”

From your lips to the FCC's ears, Mr. Rodgers. And thank you for a tour of your neighborhood.

tag: blogswarm, Hate Speech, KSFO, Officer Vic, Lee Rodgers, Brian Sussman, ABC, Viacom, Disney, Halfrican, Media Matters, Fair Use, Copyright, First Amendment, 1st Amendment