Dan Rather before the Internet - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-15-2004, 09:19 AM

Coincidentally after I wrote this post, I read that apparently Dan Rather tried this type of thing before, only the difference is there was no internet, and no Fox News

to catch him.

Quote:

The First Rathergate
The CBS anchor’s precarious relationship with the truth.

By Anne Morse
Critics are calling the media scandal over the Jerry Killian forgeries "Rathergate." But to thousands of Vietnam veterans, the real Rathergate took place 16 years ago when Dan Rather successfully foisted a fraud onto the American people. Then, unlike now, there was no blogosphere to expose him.
On June 2, 1988, CBS aired an hour-long special titled CBS Reports: The Wall Within, which CBS trumpeted as the "rebirth of the TV documentary." It purported to tell the true story of Vietnam through the eyes of six of the men who fought there. And what terrible stories they had to tell.
"I think I was one of the highest trained, underpaid, eighteen-cent-an-hour assassins ever put together by a team of people who knew exactly what they were looking for," said Steve Southards, a Navy SEAL who told Rather he had escaped society to live in the forests of Washington state. Under Rather's gentle coaxing, Southards described slaughtering Vietnamese civilians, making his work appear to be that of the North Vietnamese.
"You're telling me that you went into the village, killed people, burned part of the village, then made it appear that the other side had done this?" Rather asked.
"Yeah," Steve replied. "It was kill VC, and I was good at what I did."
Steve arrived home "in a straitjacket, addicted to alcohol and drugs" knowing that "combat had made him different," Rather intoned. "He asked for help; that's unusual, many vets don't. They hold back until they explode."
Rather then moved on to suicidal veteran named George Grule, who was stationed on the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga off the coast of Vietnam during a secret mission. Grule described the horror of watching a friend walk into the spinning propeller of a plane, which chopped him to pieces and sprayed Grule with his blood. The memory of this trauma left Grule, like Steve, unable to function in normal society.
Neither could Mikal Rice, who broke down as he described a grenade attack at Cam Ranh Bay, which blew in half the body of a buddy, "Sergeant Call." "He died in my arms," Rice tearfully recalled. Rice described how the sound of thunder and cars backfiring would regularly trigger his terrible memories.
Most horrific of all were the memories of Terry Bradley, a "fighting sergeant" who told Rather he had skinned alive 50 Vietnamese men, women, and children in one hour and stacked their bodies in piles. "Could you do this for one hour of your life, you stack up every way a body could be mangled, up into a body, an arm, a tit, an eyeball . . . Imagine us over there for a year and doing it intensely," Bradley said. "That is sick."
"You've got to be angry about it," Rather replied. "I'm suicidal about it," Bradley responded.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, drug abuse, alcoholism, joblessness, homelessness, suicidal thoughts: These tattered warriors suffered from them all.
The The Wall Within was hailed by critics who — like the Washington Post's Tom Shales — gushed that the documentary was "extraordinarily powerful." There was just one problem: Almost none of it was true.
The truth was uncovered by B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author of Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History (with Glenna Whitley). Burkett discovered that only one of the vets had actually served in combat. Steve Southards, who'd claimed to be a 16-year-old Navy SEAL assassin, had actually served as an equipment repairman stationed far from combat. Later transferred to Subic Bay in the Philippines, Steve spent most of his time in the brig for repeatedly going AWOL.
And George Gruel, who claimed he was traumatized by the sight of his friend being chopped to pieces by a propeller? Navy records reveal that a propeller accident did take place on the Ticonderoga when Gruel was aboard — but that he wasn't around when it happened. During Gruel's tour, the ship had been converted to an antisubmarine warfare carrier which operated, not on "secret mission" along the Vietnam coast, but on training missions off the California coastline. Nevertheless, Burkett notes, Gruel receives $1,952 a month from the Veterans Administration for "psychological trauma" related to an event he only heard about.
Mikal Rice — the anguished vet who claimed to have cradled his dying buddy in his arms — actually spent his tour as a guard with an MP company at Cam Ranh Bay. He never saw combat. Neither did Terry Bradley, who was not the "fighting sergeant" he'd claimed to be. Instead, military records reveal he served as an ammo handler in the 25th Infantry Division and spent nearly a year in the stockade for being AWOL. That's good news for the hundreds of Vietnamese civilians Bradley claimed to have slaughtered. But it doesn't say much for Dan Rather's credibility.
As Burkett notes, the records of all of these vets were easily checkable through Freedom of Information Act requests of their military records — something Rather and his producers simply didn't bother to do. They accepted at face value the lurid tales of atrocities committed in Vietnam and the stories of criminal behavior, drug addiction, and despair at home.
Perhaps that's because this is what they wanted to believe. Says Burkett: The Wall Within "precisely fit what Americans have grown to believe about the Vietnam War and its veterans: They routinely committed war crimes. They came home from an immoral war traumatized, vilified, then pitied. Jobless, homeless, addicted, suicidal, they remain afflicted by inner conflicts, stranded on the fringes of society."
Burkett, who did check the records of the vets Rather interviewed, shared his discoveries with CBS. So did Thomas Turnage, then administrator of the Veterans Administration, who was appalled by Rather's use of bogus statistics on the rates of suicide, homelessness, and mental illness among Vietnam veterans — statistics that can also be easily checked. Rather initially refused to comment, and CBS spokeswoman Kim Akhtar said, "The producers stand behind their story. They had enough proof of who they are." For his part, CBS president Howard Stringer defended the network with irrelevancies. "Your criticisms were not shared by a vast majority of our viewers," he sniffed, adding that "CBS News and its affiliates received acclaim from most quarters . . . In sum, this was a broadcast of which we at CBS News and I personally am proud. There are no apologies to make."
Sarah Lee Pilley, who ran a restaurant in Colville, Washington where the CBS crew dined while filming The Wall Within, would not agree. The wife of a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who saw combat in Vietnam, Pilley, said she "got the distinct feeling that CBS had a story they had decided on before they left New York." After interviewing 87 Vietnam veterans, CBS chose the "four or five saddest cases to put on the film," Pilley said. "The factual part of it didn't seem to matter as long as they captured the high drama and emotion that these few individuals offered. We felt all along that CBS committed tremendous exploitation of some very sick individuals."
Why would Dan Rather do such a thing? Partly because the stories of deranged, trip-wire vets is much more dramatic than the true story: That most Vietnam veterans came home to live normal, productive, happy lives. Second, Rather apparently wanted the story of whacked-out Vietnam veterans to be true — just as he now wants the Jerry Killian story to be true.
Or maybe — despite a preponderance of the evidence — he considered the sources of these tales of Vietnam atrocities "unimpeachable." As angry Vietnam veterans began calling CBS to complain about the factual inaccuracies of The Wall Within, Perry Wolff, the executive producer who wrote the documentary, claimed that "No one has attacked us on the facts." Despite the growing evidence that he'd been had, Rather also continued to defend the documentary — which is now part of CBS's video history series on the Vietnam War.
Perhaps Vietnam veterans ought to take a page out of the book of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and air television ads exposing Rather's deceits — something along the lines of: "Dan Rather lied about his Vietnam documentary. I know. I was there. I saw what happened. When the chips were down, you could not count on Dan Rather."
Certainly, we cannot count on him for the truth. During a 1993 speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, Rather criticized his colleagues for competing with entertainment shows for "dead bodies, mayhem, and lurid tales." "We should all be ashamed of what we have and have not done, measured against what we could do," Rather said.
Thousands of Vietnam veterans — not to mention the Bush campaign — would agree.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0409150552.asp
Now the article speaks for itself, and its not really what’s important. I think what does matter is while we worry about freedom of speech and the like, we must be ever vigilant vrs politicians who complain about the internet and other sources of information. There are a lot of lies on the internet, we all know that, but its up for you to decide. While before the internet, our media might not have been state controlled, it was still controlled by people who may not have your best interests in mind. Now you can raise your objections and if you do it well enough people will listen and ask more questions. If Dan Rather tried this same report in 1988 today, he would never have gotten away with it.

Lebell · 09-15-2004, 09:25 AM

I am ashamed to say that I used to admire Dan Rather.

Ustwo · 09-15-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I am ashamed to say that I used to admire Dan Rather.

Me too, in highschool I thought 60 minutes was a great show, and really did a great job showing the truth. Kids are easy to fool apparently.

Edit: minutes does not equal minuets

roachboy · 09-15-2004, 10:02 AM

typical right revisionist bullshit about vietnam.
plot summary, counter legitimated with reference to a book that operates outside the article--the summary of its contents, totally uncritical, operates on your as a reader if and only if you a priori are inclined to believe this sort of general claim. which means that the article is compelling only if you share a series of prior assumptions about vietnam. in which case, the contents of the book itself are secondary--they are confirmation of predispositions, not evidence in any meaningful sense.

so you have an example of conservative "thought" that operates on a parallel level to
daivd duke's whackjob interpretation of 911--everything sits in the premises, acceptance of which presuppose a prior agreement between the politics of the writer, journal and reader. if you are not in that circuit, the article is totally ineffectual.

notice that when you get down toward the end, the Big Flourishes are, at every point made in the conditional tense.

why would a series of claims distanced through use of the conditional tense "speak for itself"--unless what you mean is that if you read this article carefully you cannot take it seriously, and therefore it does, in a way, speak for itself, insofar as it is a good index of why conservative media itself should not be taken seriously?

in which case, i would agree with you, for once.

Ustwo · 09-15-2004, 10:10 AM

You sound like a very bitter person. Are you saying that in fact these men Rather used were all in fact combat vets and war criminals? Or are you just inclinded to believe amazing stories because they fit your world view of America being evil?

Also the shift keys is to the left and right of the keyboard over the keys marked 'ctrl'. Just a hint.

roachboy · 09-15-2004, 10:16 AM

try reponding to the argument.
maybe i'll come back into the thread.
i am not interested in trading personal attacks.
let's see if you have anything to say, really.

onetime2 · 09-15-2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

typical right revisionist bullshit about vietnam.
.

The point was that Dan Rather took the word of people without doing any kind of background checking. What does that have to do with "right revisionist bullshit about vietnam"?

roachboy · 09-15-2004, 10:42 AM

onetime--look at the counter source, then read the rest of the article. it is obvious if you actually read the article carefully. geez.

Ustwo · 09-15-2004, 10:43 AM

Labell I'm being good

onetime2 · 09-15-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

onetime--look at the counter source, then read the rest of the article. it is obvious if you actually read the article carefully. geez.

So, you believe the men he interviewed were truthful despite their records from the DOD?

I really am not understanding your point RB.

Lebell · 09-15-2004, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Labell I'm being good

Only sort of.

I don't disagree with the original article or your take on it, it's the sarcasm that escalates things (the "shift" key comment, for example, instead of saying, "You know, capitalizing would make it easier to read your post.")

Before this I might have considered posting and telling roachboy that he started with an angry post where I didn't see one warranted.

Now I have to decide whether or not to let the post live.

Since I like to err on the side of free speech, I'll let it live (for now), but both of you need to tone it down.

Edit to say: Onetime's is the kind of response I like: to the point and on the facts.

Ustwo · 09-15-2004, 12:20 PM

The shift key comment is because lack of using it makes it hard to follow the posts.

The good comment was because I could think of nothing nice to say about his posting.

irateplatypus · 09-15-2004, 03:07 PM

for all the noise the internet produces, it's good to see a major news organization get nailed when they're irresponsible with a big news story. the major media outlets have a whole new level of accountability on their backs. even though that sometimes get out of hand, it does have it redeeming qualities.

roachboy · 09-15-2004, 06:50 PM

i think the argument i posted above was clear enough. i do not feel any need to add to it.
but i'll summarize what i was trying to say.

it refers to the way levels of claims are woven together in the national review text cited at the beginning of the thread.

it assumes that argument by interpretation of a text is a legitimate mode of proceeding. whether it is the mode that folk like best for aesthetic reasons is not really my problem. the mode in itself is legitimate.

the text as it stands functions as a kind of fact. pulling apart mixed levels of argument is one of many many ways in which that article can be attacked.

another would be to question the value of a national review hatchet piece in general.

another would be to cite r.g. burkett's involvement with such fine organizations as the swift boat veterans in order to undermine the credulity a reader might otherwise accord his book, which is the central touchstone one which the writer's project sits.

yet another would be to say that the audience for a national review hatchet job like this would be predisposed to believe burkett to be correct without having read the book on the basis of the title alone, which is what i was referring to when i said everything about this article relies on prior assumptions about the relationship of writer-journal-audience.

the linkage to a bigger project of revisionist history of vietnam should be self-evident--as should be the claim that the writer is not really that interested in attacking rather's professional conduct in this case of the "wall within" as the end of the article--if she was, the article would not have been cited here at all, i suspect. reporters screw up like this all the time. like irate said, it is good when they get called out on it , and frequently they are--read something like the columbia journalism review sometime...but this national review article uses rather and questions about his professional conduct for bigger purposes. if you cant see that, then there really is nothing more to be said.

as for the tone of my initial post--it must have slipped away from me a little, because there was nothing angry in it.
at least not insofar as the tone of a post reflects the state of mind in which it was written.
i found the article tedious, as i find almost all articles of its type, as i find the national review in general, as i find revisionist projects about vietnam to be inevitably.
maybe it was the word bullshit that gave you the idea i was angry, or that the post was angry. i dont know. or maybe ustwo misread it, and then that misreading was echoed. i have no way of knowing.

for the record, i rarely get angry in here--i get exasperated from time to time, but rarely angry. this is more a chess game, political debates, even in here, whether the quality of debate varies not a little.

mostly, posting in politics is something i do while i am drinking coffee in the morning and trying to screw up the energy to leave my apartment. it is a diversion.

onetime2 · 09-16-2004, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i think the argument i posted above was clear enough. i do not feel any need to add to it.
but i'll summarize what i was trying to say.

it refers to the way levels of claims are woven together in the national review text cited at the beginning of the thread.

it assumes that argument by interpretation of a text is a legitimate mode of proceeding. whether it is the mode that folk like best for aesthetic reasons is not really my problem. the mode in itself is legitimate.

the text as it stands functions as a kind of fact. pulling apart mixed levels of argument is one of many many ways in which that article can be attacked.

another would be to question the value of a national review hatchet piece in general.

another would be to cite r.g. burkett's involvement with such fine organizations as the swift boat veterans in order to undermine the credulity a reader might otherwise accord his book, which is the central touchstone one which the writer's project sits.

yet another would be to say that the audience for a national review hatchet job like this would be predisposed to believe burkett to be correct without having read the book on the basis of the title alone, which is what i was referring to when i said everything about this article relies on prior assumptions about the relationship of writer-journal-audience.

the linkage to a bigger project of revisionist history of vietnam should be self-evident--as should be the claim that the writer is not really that interested in attacking rather's professional conduct in this case of the "wall within" as the end of the article--if she was, the article would not have been cited here at all, i suspect. reporters screw up like this all the time. like irate said, it is good when they get called out on it , and frequently they are--read something like the columbia journalism review sometime...but this national review article uses rather and questions about his professional conduct for bigger purposes. if you cant see that, then there really is nothing more to be said.

Your arguments, including this one, are often unclear to me. Your style of writing and punctuation make it very difficult to decipher your intent and your point. I know I'm not the only one faced with such difficulty with regard to your posts.

From your above summary, am I correct in concluding that rather than discuss the facts presented you would prefer to debate the tactics of the debate? That it doesn't matter whether Dan Rather and his staff have previously demonstrated sloppy fact checking in their rush to broadcast? Since a "biased" book was pointed to in the text that this fact is no longer relevant?

Perhaps I am still just not understanding your point RB. And believe me I am trying.

roachboy · 09-16-2004, 06:10 AM

pseudo-personal aside: the capitalization choice is a personal/aethetic one. it is associated with email--at one point there was a long justification, now it seems mostly habit.
i think it helps keep types of writing, types of voice apart.
i am not operating or writing in an academic mode here, so i write like it is informal for me, like it is email.
less punctuation as well. writing quickly, like talking.
-----

let me try it this way:

when you read an article, how do you evaluate it?

what do you understand by the "facts"?

i understand the whole article to be fair game, that you can't see articles as simply transparent, something you look through to get access to a world of "facts".
maybe it is a reflex on my part to be suspicious (given certain triggers) as a function of being a historian by training.
so it is possible that i do not read texts with the same set of assumptions about validity (which is a rhteorical effect more often than not) as you do.
so it is possible that i read for different things, in a different way.

in this case, the claim "fraud" in the opening paragraph gives an indication of what will follow. the term is excessive, and the writer uses the disjuncture between that term and what the "factual" elements of her piece to shift from a simple critique of a single documentary to something bigger.

it turns out that the entire premise of the piece is taken from burkett's book.

she acts as though she saw the film in 1988 and was bothered byu it all this time, but in fact she is recapitulating the book.

the "facts" here are a problem (have you read burkett's book? if not, why do you believe it is accurate? because you are predisposed for some reason to dislike dan rather? why would you bother disliking a talking head? or is the book's title persuasive on its own? why would that be? clearly, the title functions to position the entire article in a particular field of "debate"--which is what i reacted to at the outset, by calling the whole thing right revisionist bullshit on vietnam)

the mixing of agendas gets clearer when she shifts into rheotircal questions over teh last 4-5 paragraphs.

she even cites the swift boat vets--now discredited from all sides--as a model. which is kind of funny, given burkett's involvement with them. maybe that is what she sees her article as being--a kind of sbvt-style advert.

in any event, the article is really problematic.
the national review is really problematic, in general. i read it from time to time. it is a pretty shabby operation.

i am reaching the point however where this piece is not longer really worth the engagement--however i dont mind carrying on to try to show how the piece works and why i think it a hatchet job--
through it there is some chance laying a basis for conversation that gets past my email fonts choices.
it'd be good to have more possibilities for debate/discussion in general.
so there we are.
it's argument is not limited to such "facts" as she presents (what she cites the burkett book to legitimate)---

onetime2 · 09-16-2004, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pseudo-personal aside: the capitalization choice is a personal/aethetic one. it is associated with email--at one point there was a long justification, now it seems mostly habit.
i think it helps keep types of writing, types of voice apart.
i am not operating or writing in an academic mode here, so i write like it is informal for me, like it is email.
less punctuation as well. writing quickly, like talking.

There is nothing remotely personal about my comments. Your style of writing in your posts is difficult to decipher for me and others. It's not just punctuation but also the jumps from one subject to another. You've made a conscious decision to post the way you do and that's fine, but don't be offended or surprised that people find it difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

let me try it this way:

when you read an article, how do you evaluate it?

what do you understand by the "facts"?

i understand the whole article to be fair game, that you can't see articles as simply transparent, something you look through to get access to a world of "facts".
maybe it is a reflex on my part to be suspicious (given certain triggers) as a function of being a historian by training.
so it is possible that i do not read texts with the same set of assumptions about validity (which is a rhteorical effect more often than not) as you do.
so it is possible that i read for different things, in a different way.

in this case, the claim "fraud" in the opening paragraph gives an indication of what will follow. the term is excessive, and the writer uses the disjuncture between that term and what the "factual" elements of her piece to shift from a simple critique of a single documentary to something bigger.

it turns out that the entire premise of the piece is taken from burkett's book.

she acts as though she saw the film in 1988 and was bothered byu it all this time, but in fact she is recapitulating the book.

the "facts" here are a problem (have you read burkett's book? if not, why do you believe it is accurate? because you are predisposed for some reason to dislike dan rather? why would you bother disliking a talking head? or is the book's title persuasive on its own? why would that be? clearly, the title functions to position the entire article in a particular field of "debate"--which is what i reacted to at the outset, by calling the whole thing right revisionist bullshit on vietnam)

the mixing of agendas gets clearer when she shifts into rheotircal questions over teh last 4-5 paragraphs.

she even cites the swift boat vets--now discredited from all sides--as a model. which is kind of funny, given burkett's involvement with them. maybe that is what she sees her article as being--a kind of sbvt-style advert.

in any event, the article is really problematic.
the national review is really problematic, in general. i read it from time to time. it is a pretty shabby operation.

i am reaching the point however where this piece is not longer really worth the engagement--however i dont mind carrying on to try to show how the piece works and why i think it a hatchet job--
through it there is some chance laying a basis for conversation that gets past my email fonts choices.
it'd be good to have more possibilities for debate/discussion in general.
so there we are.
it's argument is not limited to such "facts" as she presents (what she cites the burkett book to legitimate)---

I believe Burkett's research because he has made a reputation for outing people who impersonate combat veterans. I don't see CBS suing him for slander or the like and I don't see those "combat vets" from "The Wall Within" filing lawsuits and receiving any compensation. Nor do they try to present documentation that they did in fact experience the things they claimed in the broadcast.

If you choose to discount the "facts" because you disagree with the source then that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to be so easily swayed. Please feel free to show how it is that these veterans were where they said they were.

You claim that the Swift Vets have been "discredited from all sides" but this is only your opinion not fact.

whocarz · 09-16-2004, 06:53 AM

I know a Vietnam vet. I see him once a week. He is one of the nicest guys I know. He isn't well off by any means (he lives in a panel truck), yet he'll give you the shirt off his back if you ask. And he did some horrible shit in Vietnam. He killed prisoners, he shot at civilians, he threw C-rations at kids hard, he once pushed a "gooner" off a bridge to his death because the guy smiled at him as he marched by. Yes, monstrous I know. He, however, is remorseless about everything he did over there. However, one would never in their wildest dreams think he did anything so horrid unless they heard it from him. War is nasty, vile business, yet it will be with us as long as humanity exists.

My point here, however, is that, regardless of said article, the CBS "documentary" is pure bullshit. To think that one could skin 50 individuals while they were still alive in one hour is beyond belief. What would be the purpose of doing something like that? Was he by himself? Was he ordered to do it? Why? No one found doing something so vile wrong enough to stop it? If it was wide spread as the man suggests, why don't we hear from more vets coming forward to decry this disgusting act? If he were acting alone, how did he manage to cowtow over two score people so he could skin them alive one by one? A rational mind would dismiss such a ridiculous claim.

I will concede that I saw the overarching goal of the article as an advertisement of the SBVT, which for some people immediately invalidates it. Even I was a bit weary of the chest thumping for the SBVT, which I have place no trust in.

roachboy · 09-16-2004, 07:01 AM

onetime:

i suspect that you are being obtuse.
but tant pis, nothing to be done.

it would appear that you recognize but are not bothered by how the article works.
in which case, you simply confirm what i was saying at the outset.

things are otherwise for me.

hermeneutics of suspicion, sir: it is a good posture.
if you believe everything you read with footnotes, you will soon be thinking borges stories are nonfiction.

btw: i didnt take your remarks about the writing as personal. not to worry. i just chose to respond.

onetime2 · 09-16-2004, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

onetime:

i suspect that you are being obtuse.
but tant pis, nothing to be done.

it would appear that you recognize but are not bothered by how the article works.
in which case, you simply confirm what i was saying at the outset.

things are otherwise for me.

hermeneutics of suspicion, sir: it is a good posture.
if you believe everything you read with footnotes, you will soon be thinking borges stories are nonfiction.

btw: i didnt take your remarks about the writing as personal. not to worry. i just chose to respond.

I do not take everything I read at face value and your implication ignores the reasons I outlined in the above post. Not only are the claims made by those appearing in the show ridiculous (a 16 year old Navy Seal assassin? Skinning 50 people in an hour, etc) but the people making those claims did not hold up under the mildest of scrutiny.

It's one thing to question a source it's quite another to ignore all reason because you discount the source.

roachboy · 09-16-2004, 07:22 AM

for the record, i did not say much about the charges against the documentary in themselves.
i conceded that the charges might be true....i am more careful that you would prefer, onetime.
had i made the argument you impute to me, which would be simply an inversion of the text as it is, then none of this would be interesting at all: not to me, not to you, not to anyone.

i usually do not quote myself, but here it seems appropriate:

Quote:

the linkage to a bigger project of revisionist history of vietnam should be self-evident--as should be the claim that the writer is not really that interested in attacking rather's professional conduct in this case of the "wall within" as the end of the article--if she was, the article would not have been cited here at all, i suspect. reporters screw up like this all the time. like irate said, it is good when they get called out on it , and frequently they are--read something like the columbia journalism review sometime...but this national review article uses rather and questions about his professional conduct for bigger purposes. if you cant see that, then there really is nothing more to be said.

smooth · 09-16-2004, 09:31 AM

evidently, there was "nothing more to be said" about your astute comments, so some people built a strawman and beat the shit out of it.

shame, I'm guessing someone somewhere could have learned something today if people would engage your comments.

09-15-2004, 09:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I am ashamed to say that I used to admire Dan Rather. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-15-2004, 10:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	typical right revisionist bullshit about vietnam. plot summary, counter legitimated with reference to a book that operates outside the article--the summary of its contents, totally uncritical, operates on your as a reader if and only if you a priori are inclined to believe this sort of general claim. which means that the article is compelling only if you share a series of prior assumptions about vietnam. in which case, the contents of the book itself are secondary--they are confirmation of predispositions, not evidence in any meaningful sense. so you have an example of conservative "thought" that operates on a parallel level to daivd duke's whackjob interpretation of 911--everything sits in the premises, acceptance of which presuppose a prior agreement between the politics of the writer, journal and reader. if you are not in that circuit, the article is totally ineffectual. notice that when you get down toward the end, the Big Flourishes are, at every point made in the conditional tense. why would a series of claims distanced through use of the conditional tense "speak for itself"--unless what you mean is that if you read this article carefully you cannot take it seriously, and therefore it does, in a way, speak for itself, insofar as it is a good index of why conservative media itself should not be taken seriously? in which case, i would agree with you, for once. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-15-2004, 10:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You sound like a very bitter person. Are you saying that in fact these men Rather used were all in fact combat vets and war criminals? Or are you just inclinded to believe amazing stories because they fit your world view of America being evil? Also the shift keys is to the left and right of the keyboard over the keys marked 'ctrl'. Just a hint. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-15-2004, 10:16 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	try reponding to the argument. maybe i'll come back into the thread. i am not interested in trading personal attacks. let's see if you have anything to say, really. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-15-2004, 10:42 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	onetime--look at the counter source, then read the rest of the article. it is obvious if you actually read the article carefully. geez. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-15-2004, 10:43 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Labell I'm being good __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-15-2004, 12:20 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The shift key comment is because lack of using it makes it hard to follow the posts. The good comment was because I could think of nothing nice to say about his posting. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-15-2004, 03:07 PM	#13 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	for all the noise the internet produces, it's good to see a major news organization get nailed when they're irresponsible with a big news story. the major media outlets have a whole new level of accountability on their backs. even though that sometimes get out of hand, it does have it redeeming qualities. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-15-2004, 06:50 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think the argument i posted above was clear enough. i do not feel any need to add to it. but i'll summarize what i was trying to say. it refers to the way levels of claims are woven together in the national review text cited at the beginning of the thread. it assumes that argument by interpretation of a text is a legitimate mode of proceeding. whether it is the mode that folk like best for aesthetic reasons is not really my problem. the mode in itself is legitimate. the text as it stands functions as a kind of fact. pulling apart mixed levels of argument is one of many many ways in which that article can be attacked. another would be to question the value of a national review hatchet piece in general. another would be to cite r.g. burkett's involvement with such fine organizations as the swift boat veterans in order to undermine the credulity a reader might otherwise accord his book, which is the central touchstone one which the writer's project sits. yet another would be to say that the audience for a national review hatchet job like this would be predisposed to believe burkett to be correct without having read the book on the basis of the title alone, which is what i was referring to when i said everything about this article relies on prior assumptions about the relationship of writer-journal-audience. the linkage to a bigger project of revisionist history of vietnam should be self-evident--as should be the claim that the writer is not really that interested in attacking rather's professional conduct in this case of the "wall within" as the end of the article--if she was, the article would not have been cited here at all, i suspect. reporters screw up like this all the time. like irate said, it is good when they get called out on it , and frequently they are--read something like the columbia journalism review sometime...but this national review article uses rather and questions about his professional conduct for bigger purposes. if you cant see that, then there really is nothing more to be said. as for the tone of my initial post--it must have slipped away from me a little, because there was nothing angry in it. at least not insofar as the tone of a post reflects the state of mind in which it was written. i found the article tedious, as i find almost all articles of its type, as i find the national review in general, as i find revisionist projects about vietnam to be inevitably. maybe it was the word bullshit that gave you the idea i was angry, or that the post was angry. i dont know. or maybe ustwo misread it, and then that misreading was echoed. i have no way of knowing. for the record, i rarely get angry in here--i get exasperated from time to time, but rarely angry. this is more a chess game, political debates, even in here, whether the quality of debate varies not a little. mostly, posting in politics is something i do while i am drinking coffee in the morning and trying to screw up the energy to leave my apartment. it is a diversion. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-16-2004, 06:10 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pseudo-personal aside: the capitalization choice is a personal/aethetic one. it is associated with email--at one point there was a long justification, now it seems mostly habit. i think it helps keep types of writing, types of voice apart. i am not operating or writing in an academic mode here, so i write like it is informal for me, like it is email. less punctuation as well. writing quickly, like talking. ----- let me try it this way: when you read an article, how do you evaluate it? what do you understand by the "facts"? i understand the whole article to be fair game, that you can't see articles as simply transparent, something you look through to get access to a world of "facts". maybe it is a reflex on my part to be suspicious (given certain triggers) as a function of being a historian by training. so it is possible that i do not read texts with the same set of assumptions about validity (which is a rhteorical effect more often than not) as you do. so it is possible that i read for different things, in a different way. in this case, the claim "fraud" in the opening paragraph gives an indication of what will follow. the term is excessive, and the writer uses the disjuncture between that term and what the "factual" elements of her piece to shift from a simple critique of a single documentary to something bigger. it turns out that the entire premise of the piece is taken from burkett's book. she acts as though she saw the film in 1988 and was bothered byu it all this time, but in fact she is recapitulating the book. the "facts" here are a problem (have you read burkett's book? if not, why do you believe it is accurate? because you are predisposed for some reason to dislike dan rather? why would you bother disliking a talking head? or is the book's title persuasive on its own? why would that be? clearly, the title functions to position the entire article in a particular field of "debate"--which is what i reacted to at the outset, by calling the whole thing right revisionist bullshit on vietnam) the mixing of agendas gets clearer when she shifts into rheotircal questions over teh last 4-5 paragraphs. she even cites the swift boat vets--now discredited from all sides--as a model. which is kind of funny, given burkett's involvement with them. maybe that is what she sees her article as being--a kind of sbvt-style advert. in any event, the article is really problematic. the national review is really problematic, in general. i read it from time to time. it is a pretty shabby operation. i am reaching the point however where this piece is not longer really worth the engagement--however i dont mind carrying on to try to show how the piece works and why i think it a hatchet job-- through it there is some chance laying a basis for conversation that gets past my email fonts choices. it'd be good to have more possibilities for debate/discussion in general. so there we are. it's argument is not limited to such "facts" as she presents (what she cites the burkett book to legitimate)--- __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-16-2004, 06:53 AM	#18 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	I know a Vietnam vet. I see him once a week. He is one of the nicest guys I know. He isn't well off by any means (he lives in a panel truck), yet he'll give you the shirt off his back if you ask. And he did some horrible shit in Vietnam. He killed prisoners, he shot at civilians, he threw C-rations at kids hard, he once pushed a "gooner" off a bridge to his death because the guy smiled at him as he marched by. Yes, monstrous I know. He, however, is remorseless about everything he did over there. However, one would never in their wildest dreams think he did anything so horrid unless they heard it from him. War is nasty, vile business, yet it will be with us as long as humanity exists. My point here, however, is that, regardless of said article, the CBS "documentary" is pure bullshit. To think that one could skin 50 individuals while they were still alive in one hour is beyond belief. What would be the purpose of doing something like that? Was he by himself? Was he ordered to do it? Why? No one found doing something so vile wrong enough to stop it? If it was wide spread as the man suggests, why don't we hear from more vets coming forward to decry this disgusting act? If he were acting alone, how did he manage to cowtow over two score people so he could skin them alive one by one? A rational mind would dismiss such a ridiculous claim. I will concede that I saw the overarching goal of the article as an advertisement of the SBVT, which for some people immediately invalidates it. Even I was a bit weary of the chest thumping for the SBVT, which I have place no trust in. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

09-16-2004, 07:01 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	onetime: i suspect that you are being obtuse. but tant pis, nothing to be done. it would appear that you recognize but are not bothered by how the article works. in which case, you simply confirm what i was saying at the outset. things are otherwise for me. hermeneutics of suspicion, sir: it is a good posture. if you believe everything you read with footnotes, you will soon be thinking borges stories are nonfiction. btw: i didnt take your remarks about the writing as personal. not to worry. i just chose to respond. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-16-2004, 09:31 AM	#22 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	evidently, there was "nothing more to be said" about your astute comments, so some people built a strawman and beat the shit out of it. shame, I'm guessing someone somewhere could have learned something today if people would engage your comments. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman