Comments on: Bloggers drive hoax probe into Bush memos

The Net is home to leagues of amateur detectives, who question the veracity of the Bush Air National Guard memos publicized by CBS.

I had to laugh at the author's "scare" tactics...

The article describes the "deeply conservative FreeRepublic.com", and sneeringly refers to "this kind of rhetoric" on that site. Was that the author's attempt to try and discredit the source? In reality, freerepublic.com is merely a "conservative" web site, with lots of give-and-take between traditional conservatives, libertarians, neo-conservatives, and none-of-the-aboves.

Would you like it if other "news" outlets referred to a news.com article as being published on "the fringe web site news.com which routinely spews over-the-top rhetoric from opinionated columnists"? Or would you prefer that the attribution be given to "news.com" and let the reader decide for him/herself what to think about the source? Why can't you simply report honestly, without embellishing the story with your "feelings"?

[klaxonator]

RE: I had to laugh....

Frank ? As the author of the story, I can assure you that the description of FreeRepublic was not intended "sneeringly" ? in fact, we were giving the site credit for raising what has become an important national issue. I was simply hoping to distinguish that site from Power Line. I hope that neither "conservative" nor "deeply conservative" are viewed as epithets, any more than "liberal" or "deeply liberal" might be to persons identifying with the political left.

However, you do raise the important issue of parity. In the story we do not apply any adjective to the "liberal" sites mentioned. For that reason, we have decided to remove "deeply" from the description of FreeRepublic.

I hope none of this is widely viewed as "scare tactics." As you might note from the article, we are trying to point out the influence that non-traditional news and discussion sites are having on the political debate, not discredit them. -jb

[alek_nedic]

freerepublic

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_handy_hints.htm

"Hoax"?

I don't think that the bloggers the article refers to are calling "hoax" as much as they are calling "political dirty trick" and "blatant example of media bias." Gary Killian, son of the man alleged to have authorized the "memos" has publically said he told the CBS reporter who contact him that he doubted the memos' authenticity, that his father had a favorable opinion of George W. Bush, and that the reporter should speak to a certain pilot who served with Bush. The reporter responded that the named pilot was "too pro-Bush," according to Killian. CBS knew these documents were questionable, knew their sources were unreliable, but still went with the story. CBS says each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity," but they acknowledge that they do not have the originals, only copies, and refuse to name their experts, or identify the source of the documents. As we have seen all too often, its not the nature of the evidence, its the seriousness of the charge. Even now, while defending the documents, CBS insists that even if they are fakes, they "raise serious questions." I agree, they do raise serious questions: questions about the integrity of Dan Rather and CBS news.

the hoax about the hoax debunked by bloggers

It's not just rightwing bloggers participating in this issue. Those opposed to the wingnuts at Powerline also scrutinized the documents and showed how these could have been created on machines of the day, specifically the IBM Composer and IBM Executive model typewriters, which the Air Force was using at the time (since 1969).

See for example: http://hunter.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

This has resulted in a shift in media coverage away from the wingnut point of view:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL

[alek_nedic]

wingnuts at Powerline

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_house_dust.htm