tmp‎ > ‎


#21 (1020906) charles 0 [2004-10-02 06:04:26]

Jamie: I have no interest in playing along with your 'gotcha' game. The story is over. Fox immediately retracted it. It's being 'dismissed' now because it's unbelievably venal and silly for people like Marshall (and you) to try to inflate its importance.

If CBS News had behaved the same way as Fox, we wouldn't still be talking about RATHERgate, and you know it.

#12 (1022333) charles 0 [2004-10-02 16:39:51]

Yehudit: because CBS producer Mary MAPES has been citing his study, and I would not be surprised at all to see this become the mainstream media rallying point. But now, the case has already been destroyed.

That's why it's important to deal with this stuff as soon as possible, and big ups to Wizbang for noticing the crude cut-and-paste job in Hailey's own PDF.

#8 (1363694) charles 0 [2005-02-08 14:48:16]

Buckaroo: 'Martha' MAPES! Heh. That was New York Magazine's error -- it's their page title. (I corrected mine.)

#14 (2060072) charles 0 [2005-09-25 16:08:48]

During the RATHERgate craziness, when Drudge linked us for a brief time, I managed to get in and saw over 30,000 online.

#159 (3702298) charles 0 [2007-04-06 09:57:16]

zombie: that's not all that's going on at Wikipedia. There's also an obsessed moonbat trying to rewrite the history of the fake RATHERgate documents, and calling me all kinds of names, here:


#244 (4264482) charles 0 [2007-09-20 10:07:47]

re: #208 Throbert McGee

My favorite line from the WaPo story:

The debacle over the National Guard story, which the suit says became known as 'RATHERgate,' turned on 30-year-old memos said to have been written by Bush's late squadron commander. Several newspapers, including The Washington Post, and conservative bloggers gathered evidence that the documents were unlikely to have been typed on government typewriters of that era.
Really? So 'conservative bloggers' helped a teeny little bit?

'Sfunny, but my memory is that the Post (along with many other MSM sources) spent approximately the first two weeks not talking about the pathetically incompetent obviousness of the forgeries, and instead spinning this as a 'he said, she said' controversy.

That's right. The Washington Post and Howard Kurtz have relegated 'bloggers' to a side role, and are now busily claiming the credit for themselves--when they did their best to ignore it at the time.

Kurtz knows my name. I talked to him about this. I've appeared on his television show. But he clearly doesn't want to give any credit to me or LGF.

#29 (4266688) charles 3 [2007-09-20 17:59:42]

re: #20 egregory

So proud to log my first-ever comment on LGF. If it wasn't for Charles (whom RATHER terms 'pajamacocci'--a fungus or bacteria that must be sterilized) the story would have stood. How many other sheer fabrications did RATHER perpetrate on the public in his 40+ years at CBS? BTW, does anyone know how MAPES' lawsuit against LGF turned out? Can't imagine Charles would settle as he was just exposing a clear media lie.

What are you talking about? Mary MAPES never sued LGF.

#198 (4440222) charles 1 [2007-10-31 09:40:18]

re: #189 looking closely

re: #160 Dianna

OK, no registration until after RATHERgate.

Funny. . .I had stumbled onto LGF a few times before RATHERgate, but didn't start lurking until it happened. Don't think I registered or made my first post for several more months.

But even so, it should *STILL* be possible to locate the post(s) in question (assuming they existed. . .which obviously they don't). Again all we'd need is a date range. Subject of the thread would help as well, but probably isn't necessary.

I bet Charles could come up with a script to search all the posts in the date range in question, and screen them to come up with a short list of one-time posters, (and even screen them again to limit to posts on threads on Palestinians).

Assuming demented-name-caller would recognize his own nick (or words), or the death threats in question, he should then have no problem picking out his post(s) from the list.

The point is, despite the alleged memory gaps, Perrins assertion about death threats is still provable or disprovable in an absolute sense.

Yes, it would be possible to search the comments, if he could 'remember' the name he used. But I don't intend to waste my time doing it, only to discover either: 1) nothing, or 2) a heated exchange that contains no 'death threat.'

#75 (5441602) charles 9 [2008-06-14 10:02:53]

Ah yes, Tom Shales. That would be the 'non-partisan' Tom Shales who insists that the RATHERgate memos might not be fakes?


#304 (6173625) charles 0 [2008-11-05 10:43:54]

re: #181 Kyle_st

Oh, come on. Something else must be going on. Are you sure you're not under a chronic, low-grade DoS attack? It seems that the 'break' between when we could reach your site, and now, was RATHER sudden a couple of weeks ago, with nothing to clearly account for it (the 'election' season wouldn't be it). No RATHERgate-type posts, nothing like that.

Just a thought from a loyal reader.

You seem to know a lot about servers.


#134 (6207957) charles 5 [2008-11-10 20:20:34]

re: #120 karmic_inquisitor

This reaction of Palin's should be thought through carefully.

I appreciate the irony, and recognize the dismissal. But she is also pointing out how effective the attacks on her were by Andrew Sullivan et al, even though they were not fact based or in any way rational.

Charles has had several breakout stories because he does take great care to establish facts before posting, and is clear about speculation. He has thereby built a reputation. You can scan the referrer logs from time to time and still see people linking old posts on Fauxtography and RATHERgate.

But what about Kos and Sullivan? The basis of their reputation lies in 'analysis' and 'opinion making'. In other words - emotional content that riles up readers.

The instinct is to fight fire with fire, but I think that, if the right is to get some power back, it has to turn to doing the job that the media has refused to. While doing that, we need to point out that the left (like the media) exists on generating emotional response RATHER than facing the trade offs of rational decision making.

We have to introduce the buyers remorse that comes after the high of buying something very new and cool and then realizing you paid too much, got it on credit, and it doesn't actually work.

We have to be the rational alternative to the 'get angry, act out, then feel good until the bill comes' ride that the left and the media has America on.

Well said.

#514 (6342418) charles 5 [2008-12-08 17:37:33]

And for the record, Bill O'Reilly defended Dan RATHER in the MEMOGATE scandal too.

#205 (6415683) charles 3 [2008-12-23 09:40:03]

re: #191 dhg4

Not to be rude, Marvin Kalb deserves some credit on this count. Granted it was Fauxtography not RATHERgate that he was writing about and this is the exception that proves the rule.

Kalb's essay was excellent -- but that was a paper for Harvard, not a media article, and as far as I know was never published anywhere else.

#30 (7066631) charles 4 [2009-04-19 11:02:09]

re: #26 Immolate

I don't watch Fox (or any other TV for that matter). I've been getting my news from blogs such as this one and Powerline since RATHERgate, with occasional forays out into the media to research issues of greater interest to me.

So you didn't read it.

#12 (7621356) charles 46 [2009-08-27 10:34:13]

re: #8 drcordell

Not sure why Goldberg is claiming that any of this is 'new information.' All of this was covered by the Washington Post back in 1999. Goldberg just knows that bashing CBS and 60 minutes as a former employee guarantees him an income from Fox News for the rest of his life. Snooze.

WaPo Story

The 'new information' is not that Bush volunteered for Vietnam - it's that MAPES was aware of this while preparing her fraudulent report.

#152 (7621525) charles 2 [2009-08-27 11:08:51]

re: #81 JamesTKirk

Even that isn't new. I wrote this in 2005:

According to page 71 of the report, MAPES was told that then-Lieutenant Bush had volunteered for active duty in Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify. Astonishingly, this is a piece of information which I have never seen anywhere in the media, which CBS apparently decided to sit on. (This information is reinforced on the top of page 140, as multiple sources backed it up -- some of whom imparted this information to MAPES as far back as 1999.)

Agreed -- it's not really new, and it's not even all that shocking. Goldberg is overselling this.

#483 (7673331) charles 9 [2009-09-08 15:46:23]

re: #468 Thanos

I had to pick up dog meds earlier, I flipped on Czar Czar Beck and he seemed a bit flustered that the guy he was interviewing brought up RATHERgate and the internet as the reason questionable people like Van Jones get outted when Czar Czar wanted it to be about talk radio

Heh. You noticed that too. He rushed Byron York off pretty quick when he brought up Dan RATHER.

He was worried York would mention LGF.

#294 (7686980) charles 2 [2009-09-11 13:53:47]

re: #290 kellino

As an avid reader of both blogs (since RATHERgate) I am not going to take sides here, but express some remorse that it has come to this.

I'm pretty sure I never said anyone needed to take sides. I can't (and don't want to) control what you read or what you think.

But please note -- I didn't start this one.

And I have no remorse over the way it's turned out, because as I stated above, if they're going to defend people like Wilders and the thugs of the Vlaams Belang, it's just as well that they don't link to me.

#323 (7687597) charles 6 [2009-09-11 17:31:12]

re: #321 jdwht

I’ve read Powerline and Footballs most days for the past five to six years. While Powerline has moved off too far to the right a few times, I think that Footballs has moved much further to the left. Footballs is not the same conservative strong hold that brought “RATHERgate” to the American awareness.
Even so, what is a shame is Footballs reaction. My friends of the center and right, our biggest failure is to support each other. We forget that the enemy is the Left who is truly trying to destroy our country. We tend to “eat our own” instead of the enemy. Why can’t we just ignore our differences and stand against a common enemy like the Left does?
I don’t care how middle of the road you are, or how far out in right field you are. Right now if you are willing to put it on the line and try to save the nation I grew up in, and fight against the morphing of America into a socialist European state, then I will stand with you. After we save this great land, then we can argue about who is too far right.

See, that's the thing. I don't agree that the left is 'the Enemy,' trying to 'destroy the country.' In fact, that's crazy. Get a grip.

And I have no intention at all of joining with any far right ideologues. Period. Not gonna happen, ever.

#551 (7714192) charles 10 [2009-09-18 17:16:17]

re: #543 unrealizedviewpoint

O'Reilly is hot shit. Don't allow envy to distort perception.

O'Reilly is a disgusting creep who stuck up for Dan RATHER during RATHERgate, and bears some responsibility for creating the atmosphere that resulted in the murder of Dr. George Tiller -- he repeated 'Tiller the babykiller' dozens of times on his show, compared him to Nazis, said he was running a death factory, etc.

He demonized the man to a degree that was completely despicable, then played dumb when people called him on it and claimed he'd never done it.

O'Reilly is scum.

#595 (7714240) charles 3 [2009-09-18 17:27:51]

re: #586 unrealizedviewpoint

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall O'Reilly interviewing you following RATHERgate. It was later, much later that O'Reilly sided with RATHER, and that was siding with him as a newsman.

No, O'Reilly did not interview me, and he came out in favor of Dan RATHER shortly after the whole mess came out.


#86 (7825608) charles 8 [2009-10-26 10:48:46]

This shows a lot about the mentality of some of these people who will believe anything negative about Barack Obama, anything at all, no matter how absurd or how obviously, logically false.

It should have been instantly clear to anyone with one look at the 'jumpinginpools' website that it had zero credibility -- and the idea that it would have a world exclusive scoop (found nowhere else on the Internet) was just beyond ridiculous, into the realm of truly brain-numbing schtoopidity.

Reminds me of RATHERgate in that way. Should have been obvious, but they just needed to believe it so very badly.

#22 (7911945) charles 18 [2009-12-01 10:37:10]

re: #14 exelwood

Had you had your current opinion of the right wing in '04 would you have pursued RATHERgate?

Yes. Fraud is fraud.

#139 (7920756) charles 0 [2009-12-04 12:08:55]

re: #138 patrioticduo

What a load. Nobody 'faked' anything. And no, this isn't even remotely similar to RATHERgate.

The irrationality of climate change deniers is awesome to behold.

#13 (8125668) charles 13 [2010-02-18 10:01:35]

Excuse me?

Robert Bluey was 'one of the first to expose the RATHERgate memos?'

In which world was that?

#114 (8537905) charles 12 [2010-07-22 16:10:37]

re: #95 darthstar

It's a false equivalence, but a necessary one. By saying that there are people on both sides who smear, they avoid the right-wing outrage of their special-needs poster child Breitbart getting called the racist smear artist that he is gaining legs.

Well, I'd say there definitely are some smear artists on the left, having been a target of some of them.

There are some parallels in the Dan RATHER case; there's no doubt that leftist politics drove some of the willful igorance that led to that debacle. Mary MAPES is a very open leftist, and RATHER himself is a sort of Xanax leftist.

I don't think it's exactly equivalent to what Breitbart did, though -- the race baiting aspect of it sets Breitbart apart.

#18 (8989066) charles 16 [2011-03-29 14:47:07]

re: #17 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

That's a given. 'So what if Fox did it, all the 'liberal' news stations do it too!' My guess? They'll point to MEMOGATE as their proof...which, sadly, is a bit hard to argue against.

It's different, though, because in case of the fake memos, CBS News wasn't pushing something they knew to be false.