September 16, 2004

CBS Announces New Line-Up

Amidst Growing News Credibility Problems, Network Focuses On Entertainment Programs

NEW YORK (Rhodes Media Services) -- Following a difficult week during which television giant CBS experienced repeated credibility blows after a 60-Minutes broadcast that relied on fake memos, the station is now focusing on a new entertainment programming line-up it hopes will entice viewers.

Leading off the new line-up is "Everybody Distrusts Rather," a refreshing comedy that follows the septuagenarian news anchor, Dan Rather, as he tries to convince the American public to trust him on a variety of topics, from preferred popcorn brands to political punditry. Hilarity ensues.

CBS is also betting heavily on its "Survivor: 60 Minutes," which will closely monitor the life signs of the aging news documentary anchors. Who will be left standing? Will it be the gasping 83-year-old Mike Wallace, or the equally old Andy Rooney? Don't count out that young whipper-snapper, 56-year-old Steve Kroft! Watch as the anchors compete for Centrum-Silver vitamins and Rascal Scooters. Hilarity ensues.

And don't miss the new season of Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), when investigators storm a newsroom only to discover a hotbed of fraud, forged documents, deception and cover-ups. Dan Rather guest stars. Hilarity ensues.

Posted by Ryan at September 16, 2004 01:37 PM

Wait, I have more media bias for you to be outraged over.

Bloomberg news (owned by who?) is currently running a headline: Bush Leads Kerry 55% to 42% in Nationwide Gallup Poll.

However, three other polls show the race is tied.

Isn't that headline, while factually true, an example of bias? Wouldn't a more accurate headline be: Three polls show race tied, one shows Bush in lead? Or simply: Polls Mixed?

Will you rail against that here as you have against anything you find to be "biased" against Bush? Please show us how you are really upset at media bias, and not just a partisan Bush-loving hack.

Posted by: David Grenier at September 17, 2004 09:34 AM

Look, David, I can't help but notice you're trying to drag me into an argument about bias when the CBS controversy is about FREAKING FORGED DOCUMENTS. If, say, Bill O'Reilly were to take to the airwaves with memos that concluded John Kerry molested water buffalo while killing infants in Vietnam, and it turned out the memos were pathetic forgeries, I'd be all over that, too.

This is what CBS is saying: "Well, okay, you got us. The documents are fake. They're fake, but they're accurate. They accurately portray what we believe to be true, despite the fact we have no hard evidence to back this up, because the memos we thought were proof, well, they turned out to be fake."

Hello? David? Now, if the Gallup poll Bloomberg news is citing (never heard of Bloomberg news, by the way, I don't get out much) happens to turn out to be a fake poll, then you can come talk to me, and we can drink a couple of beers and talk about the shoddy state of media reporting. I'll even buy the first round.

Without the documents, the CBS broadcast basically becomes an editorial or opinion piece, hardly the hard-hitting investigative stuff we've come to expect from 60 Minutes. And the amazing thing is. . . the thing we're expected to swallow here. . . is that the opinion piece is accurate, based on entirely no evidence at all because, you know, that's actually fake.

Shit. But never mind that.

Posted by: Ryan at September 17, 2004 09:58 AM

Ok, fine. Lets pretend I went through your archives and found when you were arguing about biased headlines and placed the comment there. Which is specifically why I posted the comment, because you have a history of bitching about headlines you think are "unfair" and rejecting the premise that the media is simply lazy and sloppy.

Turning the argument away from the actual point to complain about which of your posts I attached the comment to really isn't addressing the issue.

Posted by: David Grenier at September 17, 2004 11:21 AM

Turning the argument away from the actual point to complain about which of your posts I attached the comment to really isn't addressing the issue.


If I were to post, later in the day, about what I had for dinner last night, would you leave a comment about Bush's national guard records? I mean, come on. This was a post poking fun at CBS, but you left a comment about a Gallup poll and bias at a news agency I've never even heard of.

I'm all for debate and serious discussion, but you're trying to get me to swing at a pitch that hit the dirt 10 yards from the plate.

Posted by: Ryan at September 17, 2004 11:51 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!