"But for all of the negative attention Mr. Rather draws as a lightning rod for conservative ire - especially evident in the last few weeks, as he backpedaled on a story damaging to a sitting Republican president - his most likely successors remain relatively unknown." --today's New York Times
Interesting take on what happened, eh? Rather merely drew "conservative ire" and then "backpedaled." The problem, you see, is that he undertook a story "damaging to a sitting Republican president."
1. If it is only conservatives who respond with "ire" to CBS using forged documents to influence presidential elections, then whew, I got out of the Left just in the nick of time.
2. The story wasn't damaging to the President because it wasn't shown to be true, and indeed was damaging to CBS . . . for the same reason.
3. Rather "backpedaled"??? (To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude) I would say he failed to backpedal sufficiently, maintaining that he believed in the gist of what was stated in forged documents.
forg·ery, n. ~ the act of falsely making, altering, or imitating (as a document or signature) with intent to defraud; also : the crime of committing such an actIn this same article, The Times discloses that it owns four CBS affiliates, and quotes the chairman of an association of affiliates as saying, "When all is said and done, it's a business.''
And btw, I found this September 1999 "action alert" from "Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting," [which itself is biased to the Left] notes that the NY Times ran seven stories about the Viacom-CBS merger "in its September 8 edition alone." They've shown no such extent of interest in the CBS News fraud. Bias? Political agenda? Nah.
And speaking of bias, last Wed. the Times ran six letters to the editor about the CBS scandal, five of which excused or praised CBS and took the opportunity to bash Bush, --all under the headline, "How CBS Got Burned."
If anyone is getting burned, it's us, the reading watching public, the electorate. Mainstream media is astonishingly corrupt. They have betrayed our trust and deserve all the "negative attention" and "conservative ire" we can bring to bear.
UPDATE: John Leo has a piece today at townhall.com, commenting on the Rather fiasco and the (past and future) role of bloggers.
Do we want an all-out vengeful assault on CBS, or do we simply want the network to come to its senses and play stories straight?