Since this has been a week during which my blog was dedicated to hating on CBS and Dan Rather for pissing all over the concepts of journalistic accountability, credibility and thoroughness--which is all particularly insulting to me as a journalist--I'll leave you with some thoughts:
What CBS and Rather did was to rely on extremely pathetically crafted forgeries as a cornerstone of a story that could not stand without those memos being genuine.
What CBS and Rather did was to say, when faced with the reality of the forgeries, that "the memos were fake, but accurate," setting a distressing precedent and creating a shameful comedic tagline that will be used to snipe at journalists for a long time to come.
What CBS and Rather did was bad for journalism.
What CBS and Rather did will tarnish the reputations of otherwise good and decent reporters and call down even more scrutiny on their work, which requires enough damned scrutiny as it is, believe me.
What CBS and Rather did, if it had been done here, at an IBM magazine, would have gotten me fired, and probably a bunch of other people, too.
What CBS and Rather did was fucking wrong, and they don't even have the damned common decency to admit it was fucking wrong. They don't even have to say "fucking," they can just say they were wrong.
CBS and Rather are going to hunker down and wait for this storm to blow over, and it's going to do just that, and boy that pisses me off.
Less Talent, More Skin At Pageant
They need more Jennifer Garner nude.">Jennifer Garner. Jennifer Garner is just plain hot. I wish there were more pictures of Jennifer Garner nude. A nude Jennifer Garner would be great.
I'm about as reliable when it comes to participating in the Cheddar X as a pot-head who says he's get something done "tomorrow." But, I do come through about once a month or so. Let's begin, shall we?
1. What was the last thing you regret saying the moment it left your lips or keyboard?
I regret shit all the time. I'm a damned regret xerox machine, for crying out loud. One anecdote sticks out, though. . .
Back in college, my buddies and I made semi-frequent trips to the local strip club, called the Four Mile Club. It's a seedy dive of a strip club; the kind of place where you can actually smell the cooties. Anyway, we were up at "Sniff Row," which, if you're unfamiliar with strip club vernacular, is the row closest to the stage, where you can supposedly smell the. . . well. . . never mind.
So, we're up at sniff row, putting our dollars down, and generally unwinding after a long day of skipping classes, when my buddies, as was often the case, started giving me shit. We always give each other shit, usually going on down the line ganging up on one for awhile, and then moving on and giving shit to another. Well, it was my turn to get shit.
Now, the thing about my buddies and me is that we're very effective at giving shit and, after awhile of being ganged up on by veteran shit-givers, it starts to take its toll. One of my buddies, Chad, was chatting it up with the stripper on stage, and he sensed I was getting irritated about being the shit receiver, so he floated this little gem up:
"Hey, you know, his mom (meaning my mom, of course) used to be a stripper. Bet she could give you some pointers."
There are some topics that bother me, and one that has always bothered me is how my buddies like to tell me that "my mom is hot" or "they'd like to 'do' my mom." I can usually take such jokes in stride, but that day, with my buddy telling a naked woman on stage, in all seriousness, that my mother, who is, in fact, a high school English teacher, used to be a stripper. . . well. . . something went off in my head.
"My mom was never a stripper! She has more self-respect than that!"
Now, in a strip club, filled with strippers, that was probably the worst thing in the world that could have fallen out of my mouth. It was uttered in defense of my mother. It was a heat of the moment kind of thing. I could feel the heavy stares from all the half-naked and fully-naked women in the club, and I think they all wanted to kill me in various painful ways.
We left the strip club about three minutes later, which Chad laughing maniacally at me all the way out the door. He still reminds about that every chance he gets. That fucker.
2. When was the last time you wished ill upon someone? Why?
Just now, thinking of my buddy Chad.
3. What's wrong with you?
Short temper. Impatient. Obnoxious. And oh so much more.
4. Who would most benefit from having sense knocked into them?
Mike Tyson.
5. Who would you just most like to knock around?
Well, lately, it's been pretty much Dan Rather, but that probably wouldn't be a fair fight. He'd kick my ass.
6. What is the worst part of your day?
Pretty much any time I actually have to work.
UNRELATED: By the way, I've been assigned an article that will explore the evolving technology of Voice Over IP (VOIP). If you have any hot leads or good contacts for such an article, please let me know (yes, I'm looking at you, Johnny Huh?).
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.
I entered into journalism by accident. Or, sort of by accident.
Initially, I had planned to go into teaching, following in my parents' footsteps. But, somewhere along the way, I realized I didn't have the patience to deal with classrooms filled with younger versions of myself.
So it was, during the first quarter of my fourth year at Winona State University, I looked at my skill set and realized that, for whatever genetic reason, I had the ability to write. I couldn't write fiction very well, mind you, but I had a knack for writing non-fiction, particularly when it came to self-deprecating humor, but I also realized that I could naturally write like a newspaper reporter. I'm not sure where this innate skill originated, but it was pretty easy to figure out that I should look into journalism as a possible profession.
I took to the WSU mass communication/journalism curriculum like a duck to water, or, to make up a different analogy, like a nightcrawler to dirt. I was good at it. My brief foray into broadcast journalism classes didn't go so well, with me calling my professor a jackass, but I really had a knack for print journalism.
Well, during the winter quarter of that year, I was in a creative writing journalism class, which was basically all about writing human interest and feature articles. I basically breezed through the whole quarter with high grades, but it was the final project that very nearly did me in.
We were assigned a lengthy feature article; we could choose the topic, but we had to interview actual sources and present hard evidence to back up our work.
Well, I got lazy. I went and wrote an article about the Amish community living around my hometown. Now, I didn't particularly like the Amish at that time. I had grown up living around them, and I was more than just a little familiar with the long trails of horse poop streaked in front of my parents' home pretty much 24x7.
The thing is, Harmony has pretty much been economically saved by tourism, thanks in large part to the Amish, with buses of city folk coming down to Harmony to witness the Amish lifestyle. It's big business for my small hometown. Still, I've always scoffed at the tourist notion that the Amish lifestyle is an idyllic existence, which went a long ways to tainting the final project I was writing at the time.
So, I was biased. . . and I was lazy. I had my preconceived notion of what the Amish were, and I didn't want to do a lot of work. So, I interviewed a bunch of my local friends and acquaintances which, not surprisingly, consisted of a lot of people in their early 20s who made it a point not to like the Amish. The eventual article I submitted for class, though it "accurately" represented my own personal bias and the biases of those I interviewed, only presented part of the entire story. I didn't really care. It was for a grade, after all; it wasn't like it was going to go to print or anything.
Well, I got an A on the project, and the professor asked me if she could run the article in the college publication "Bravura." Eep. This was my first opportunity ever to appear in print, for other people to read, and I knew that the project, as written, was basically a big, stinking pile of personal bias. Still, I couldn't resist the chance to be in print.
So, I informed my professor that, yes, my article could run in Bravura, provided she let me rework it a bit. I went back to my hometown, and I found some ex-Amish people to interview, and I interviewed business owners who had benefited from Amish tourism, and I basically worked my ass off to present a balanced account of what the Amish community meant to the people of Harmony, not just those who disliked them. And, I'm here to tell you, it was a damned fine article, possibly one of the better things I've ever written.
I submitted the revamped article to my professor, and she agreed that it was even better than the original. I also submitted the article to the editor of Bravura and told him, in no unspecific terms, that the revamped article was the one that should run in the paper. He told me he understood.
A couple weeks later, the quarterly issue of Bravura came out. Lo and behold, there I was in print for the first time. The only problem was that it was the original, entirely biased and lazy, version of my article that ran.
I didn't think much of it at the time. It was the end of the quarter and I was getting ready for spring break, and really, it was a campus newspaper; it wasn't like that had a huge readership or anything. I left for a Colorade ski trip and didn't think once about Bravura or the crappy article.
Well. . .
Upon my return, I discovered that the Winona Daily News had seen the article in Bravura and asked for permission to run it. Now, the Winona Daily News is a fairly well-read area newspaper. Like, it's read all the way in Harmony. I had scarcely unpacked my luggage before I started hearing murmurings about my shoddy piece of journalistic garbage. The letters to the editor section of the Winona Daily News came alive with people telling me to get bent, and that I wasn't qualified to weild a pen. Back in Harmony, the issue even came up in a city council meeting.
My first day back to school for the spring quarter, I was called on the carpet, so to speak, and I was to meet with the publisher of Bravura and pretty much most of the WSU mass communication faculty. I was in trouble. I was in a whole lot of considerable trouble. As in, there was talk of suspension trouble.
Thankfully, I came to the meeting armed with the revamped article that was SUPPOSED to run and I presented it to the publisher. Some intensely intense minutes passed as the article was passed back and forth and the meeting attendees murmured in agreement that the article they had wasn't the same one that ran in Bravura. My professor, also in attendance, was forced to agree.
I'm really not sure what happened after all of that. They excused me from the office, which I left, gratefully. I was never asked about it ever again, and the furor over the article eventually died down as people moved on to other issues. I never learned for certain, but I heard that the editor who ran with the original article was suspended. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. My professor was gone the next year, too, although I don't think she was fired because of the whole flap. Suspicious timing, but probably nothing more than that. The Winona Daily News apparently forgot about the whole thing, because they hired me without much question about a year later.
Life went on, in other words, but for awhile there, I pretty much felt doomed. And, really, if I had submitted the original article, knowing full well that it was the result of lazy and biased writing, I should have been suspended, without question. But, I didn't. I went back and got the full story, or as close to the full story as I could get, and that's what I submitted for print. I still had my biases about the Amish, mind you, but I got the other side of the story.
So, today, I'm watching this crap unfold about CBS and Dan Rather using pathetically forged documents to back up what was essentially a biased news broadcast, and it pisses me off a little bit. I mean, if I had defended myself by saying "well, the article may be largely wrong, but it accurately reflects my biased research," I would have been hung out to dry. I'd be cleaning toilets for a living right now. Instead, I went back out and did my job and got the full story, and that, in the end, saved my ass.
I'm watching CBS tell the world that, although the documents they presented were forgeries, those forgeries were accurate in that they augmented the content of the broadcast. That's just so crazy ass nuts, I simply want to scream. It flies in the face of every journalistic moral rule I ever learned in school. The precedent they're setting here is just vile, and people should be insulted. I sure as hell am.
Praline: Hello, I wish to register a complaint . . . Hello? Miss?
Dan Rather: What do you mean, miss?
Praline: Oh, I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint.
Dan Rather: Sorry, we're closing for lunch.
Praline: Never mind that old man, I wish to complain about this news piece you aired about five days ago on this very station.
Dan Rather: Oh yes, the Bush AWOL expose. What's wrong with it?
Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it. Those memos you used were forged, that's what's wrong with it.
Dan Rather: No, no that's just an Internet rumor, look!
Praline: Look old man, I know forged documents when I see them and I'm looking at some right now.
Dan Rather: No, no sir, they're not forged. They're genuine.
Praline: Genuine?
Dan Rather: Yeah, remarkable memos, aren't they? They're about 30 years old but they look just like they were written using a modern word processor. amazing memos, really. Damning content, innit?
Praline: The content doesn't enter into it -- they're obviously forged.
Dan Rather: No, no -- that's just a nasty Internet rumor.
Praline: All right then, if it's just a rumor, how come you can't verify the authenticity of the memos? How come the preponderance of evidence points to the memos being extremely bad forgeries?
Dan Rather: (holding up a memo) See? It's signed.
Praline: It's a xeroxed copy! The signature doesn't mean anything on a xeroxed copy! Forging signatures on modern word processors is ridiculously easy! If these are genuine documents, where are the originals?
Dan Rather: Oh. . . they're around.
Praline: No, they're not. (takes memo out of Rather's hand) Hello memo, MEMO (holds memo up to the light) Genuine memo, where are you? Memo. (throws it in the air and lets it float to the floor) Now that's what I call a forged memo.
Dan Rather: No, no it's just difficult to verify.
Praline: Look old man, I've had just about enough of this. Those memos are definitely forged. And when I watched your news broadcase just five days ago, you assured me that the documents were genuine and that you had verified them through rigorous journalistic scrutiny. Yet now, with more and more evidence piling up that they're fake, your news organization is telling me that the memos can't be "conclusively" proven to be fake.
Dan Rather: Well, they can't be. At least not yet.
Praline: "At least not yet," what kind of talk is that? Look, why did the authenticity of the memos come under question within hours of the broadcast?
Dan Rather: That's just that danged Internet and all those reckless blogs spreading misinformation and rumor.
Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining those memos, and I discovered that the only reason they don't totally match up with each other is because the memos had been xeroxed so repeatedly, the text had just degraded.
Dan Rather: Well of course the text was degraded. Those documents are over 30 years old.
Praline: Look matey (picks up memo) this memo is supposed to be a personal document written by Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, who then supposedly saved the document. Why, then, is this memo a COPY of a personal document that you can't come up with the original of? It's bleeding forged.
Dan Rather: It's not, that's just a rumor.
Praline: It's not a rumor, it's a forged document. These memos are not real. They are fake as hell. They're not even good fakes. They're amateurish attempts at forgery that should never have been hoisted up as genuine. A fifth grader could have produced these memos. A half-blind grandmother could tell that the memos are fake.
Dan Rather: Well, I'd better issue a retraction and an apology, then.
Praline: (to camera) If you want to get anything done in this country you've got to complain till you're blue in the mouth.
Dan Rather: Sorry guv, I'm too proud and stubborn to issue a retraction and an apology.
Praline: I see. I see. I get the picture.
Dan Rather: I could do a broadcast segment devoted to underage obesity.
Praline: Would it mention all the forged documents you used that went a long way towards misinforming your viewership?
Dan Rather: Not really, no.
Praline: Well, it's scarcely a consololation then is it?
UPDATE: HAH!
UPDATE 2.0: HAH! AGAIN!
One last time.
Even answering the all the questions such as:
Were proportional spacing typewriters available? Yes.
Could you have a typewriter key with a superscript for ordinal dates? Yes.
Could a typewriter have Times New Roman? Yes.
This does not leave us in a situation where one can write "NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER". There has been no evidence presented of a typewriter that reproduces these documents (even after 6 days!). The overlays of the PDFs and MS Word copies created in default mode are too exact in spacing, centering, and tabbing to be the product of a random chance that isn't of a prohibitive nature. I agree that many were far too hasty in writing things like "superscripts weren't possible in 1972". However, to believe the case for authenticity, one must believe that these documents, and these documents alone, conform, entirely by random chance, to the default settings of the most prevalent modern word processing software on the planet. If you wish to continue to believe this, then do so, however, I feel no remorse in labeling you a moron.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on September 15, 2004 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK
In an unprecedented coup for a blogger, I, Ryan Rhodes, also known as a smoking hot specimen of male hunkiness, was able to sit down with both Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and President George W. Bush.
Because both campaigns seem to have lost focus when it comes to discussing the real issues facing America today, I took it upon myself to ask both men the probing questions that need to be asked during this politically-charged election year.
RYAN RHODES: Thank you both so much for meeting with me today. I'd like to start off by asking a question that neither of you has yet addressed. Do you prefer Coke or Pepsi, and why? Mr. Bush?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm glad you asked that question, Double R. Can I call you Double R?
RYAN RHODES: Well, actually, if you could call me Ryan, that would be. . .
PRESIDENT BUSH: Anyway, Double R, I've always preferred Pepsi, to be honest with you. Pepsi just has a certain carbonationiferousness I enjoy. Also, the colors of Pepsi are a patriotic red, white and blue, unlike that Communist red and white Coca-Cola color scheme. Coke just screams hammer and sickle, I think. I'm an American patriot, so I don't have time to drink Commie-Cola.
RYAN RHODES: Er, thank you, Mr. President. Senator Kerry?
SENATOR KERRY: Well, Mr. Rhodes, I have to tell you, the Coke versus Pepsi conflict is one that requires a lot of thought and introspection. You have to understand both sides of the issue before you can formulate an opinion. For example, I liked Pepsi before I started liking Coke, but I only started liking Coke after I consulted with top executives from both Pepsi and Coke. Whoops. I was just informed by one of my campaign managers that I do, in fact, like Coke and Pepsi equally.
RYAN RHODES: Very well. I have here a couple of pictures of women I think are extremely good looking. Who do you think is better looking: Salma Hayek or Summer Glau?
SENATOR KERRY: Well, one's own personal concept of beauty is very subjective. Some people may like curvaciously-stunning Hayek over the near-perfection of Berry. Back when I served in Vietnam, between running over to Cambodia during secret CIA missions and conducting sniper assignments targeting Ho Chi Minh, I didn't have much time to think about female beauty. I think it's safe to say, nowadays, that I like Summer Glau and Salma Hayek pretty much equally.
PRESIDENT BUSH: You see, Double R, Summer Glau is definitely hot. Back in my heavy partying days, when I was 35 or so, I can't remember--those years are still pretty hazy--I knew a few ladies who looked just like Summer Glau. They didn't like me much, but that didn't keep me from looking. Salma Hayek's great looking, too, but Summer Glau just knocks my boots off. Back in Crawford, Texas, she'd be known as a "Hawwwteeeee."
RYAN RHODES: On a more serious note, this election cycle has seen some pretty negative campaigning on both sides. What do you think should be done to improve the tone of political discourse in our country?
SENATOR KERRY: I'm all for a more civil tone in Washington, and in America in general. I mean, sure, it's easier to run a negative campaign. I could, I suppose, call President Bush a warmongering goose-stepping fascist doofus with bad breath and frumpy hair. But, you see, I'm above that.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Likewise, it would be easier if my campaign could just out-and-out call Kerry a botox-injecting, issue waffling, ketchup-eating, Vietnam-fantasizer who has all the charisma and personality of a clogged toilet, but that would be wrong.
SENATOR KERRY: Why you little. . .
PRESIDENT BUSH: Bring 'em on!
*Kerry and Bush slap at each other in a very undignified, girl-like fashion*
PRESIDENT BUSH: Appeaser!
SENATOR KERRY: Misleader!
RYAN RHODES: Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Please!
SENATOR KERRY: That's it! I've had it! I can no longer stand being in the same blog with this wretched excuse for a president! I'll just take my lucky CIA cap and be on my way. Good day, sirs. Vote Kerry!
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm outta here, too! I have a terror alert level that I've been itching to ratchet up to "Orange." It was a pleasure speaking with you, Double R. Vote Bush!
DISCLAIMER: This post includes some spoilers regarding the book "The Da Vinci code." If you're planning to read it, don't read this. . . if you've already read it, this will make perfect sense. . . if you haven't read it, and don't plan to read, this post may just as well be written in Pig Latin Chinese.
Caroline says: Did you know the Holy Grail was at the Louvre?
Ryan says: Totally had no idea.
Ryan says: Hidden in plain view, from what I understand.
Caroline says: I so knew.
Ryan says: The Teabing = Guilty thing still leaves me scratching my head.
Caroline says: heh
Ryan says: If his freakin' servant was in on it, why the hell have his servant climb to the top of a freakin' barn to do his covert surveillance?
Caroline says: because a guy with polio can't, thus clearing him as a suspect
Caroline says: if he didn't get caught, anyway
Ryan says: Uh huh. So, you know, just curious here. . . why the hell didn't the servant say "Hey, boss, this whole climbing in the barn rafter thing. . . you aren't possibly getting ready to rat me out if things go badly, are you?"
Caroline says: lol
Caroline says: I had a feeling the "Remy's allergic to peanuts" info was going to come into play later in the book...unlike PHI.
Ryan says: Trust me, Brown's going to come out with another book that centers entirely around the concept of PHI.
Caroline says: I hope so.
