That was then:CNN TR…

That was then:

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or…

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

This is now:

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry.

Dan’s apology, however, brings up more questions.

• Why did “60 Minutes” go with documents that they had not researched well enough, especially when some of their own experts advised them not to consider them authentic? Dan Rather personally reported the story, so what was gave him such confidence in their authenticity? The blogosphere blew the case wide open within 12 hours of the report, for goodness sake.
• Who forged the documents? Who is the actual source, if not Burkett? And why isn’t CBS News asking that question?
• When do we get an apology? Rather’s “apology” was just finger-pointing and backpedaling. “I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.” So basically it’s someone else’s fault that you jumped to quickly on an anti-Bush story that, with minimal checking, fell apart hours after you reported it. That’s an apology?

Sorry Dan, this doesn’t cut it.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people’s trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Of course that’s important, though in your case the reason is that the more folks who swallow what you offer, hook, line and sinker, the more of this blatant partisanship you could have gotten away with. Welcome to the 21st century, Mr. Rather.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!