There's no better a sign of a valueless argument than when political operatives are mobilized to do little more than kill the messenger when a potentially damaging story develops. We've seen mish-mashes of this, such as during the whole Swift Boat Veterans episode where the Kerry campaign was trying to prove the men themselves were connected to the Bush campaign, but the more intelligent veterans like McCain simply argued against the crux of their complaints. The lesson learned here is that big time political operations are always the worst offenders.<br><br>However, the funniest instance of this has to be what radio commentators () have dubbed "Memogate." Here we have a news operation that was duped. There's no two ways about it. They checked some mysterious documents four times, got two yeses and two maybes, and ran with it. Instead of showing their process and promising to dig out the truth behind the documents, they showed their overwhelming hubris and attacked the people attacking them, when an apology and a promise were in order.<br><br>What makes this even more complicated is the fact that absolutely no one is denying or debating the actual crux of the CBS story. In fact, it has been corroborated by several sources, including those in the office where the fake memos were faked to be written. Memos aside, this is a strong story.<br><br>If you want to visualize the metaphor here, everyone involved is dying of gaping shotgun wounds. That's always the end result though when we don't talk about the actual meat of any issue. It's all going to happen again with Kitty Kelly's book about the Bush family. Here comes the messenger!<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

i agree and that's pretty much what i've saying as well. but, the side being hurt by the story is going to do everything it can to keep the attention on everything but the content of the story. deflect the story and immediately create a new attack on the messenger to be the story.<br><br>i know matt points to the memo story being proof of the bias he sees in the media, but i think it's just further proof of the media wanting the scoop on a story and not wanting to be beaten to the punch by another source. they were in a race against time and the longer they took to get the story checked, the more likely another source would break the story. of course, that's poor journalistic quality, but it's a reality in journalism these days when you're competing with drudge and other internet sources that could give a rat's ass about integrity. this memo issue could have been a sensational story and the media is almost always after all things sensational, this story not withstanding.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

I just manufactured some documents illustrating that bird poo is the world's greatest teeth whitener. It even has the president of the ADA's signature on it. Okay, the sig is fake, as is the document.... but why can't we still discuss the bird poo? It's the crux... the CRUX, I SAY!<br><br>

thats why i posted to the guardian.uk.co website. they are the only journalists telling the real story of Iraq, like how we killed kids and women when we bombed an ambulance the other day in Fallujah<br><br>You cant polish a Turd.

if it's true, then i'd be happy to discuss it. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Like Sean says. There's no corroboration that bird poop does anything but stink, so there's no point in pursuing the whitening effect. There's lots of evidence that the memos were fake, but also lots of evidence that Bush's history stinks. So pursue the stink.<br><br>

So if there's already evidence that Bush's history stinks, who needs these fake memos? Haven't people already been pursuing it? Obviously they have, otherwise you wouldn't know about the "lots of evidence" corroborating Bush's shaky past.<br><br>The thing is, here's a respected name in a big name news outlet caught with his dink in the vacuum cleaner. Why was he so adamantly pushing these fake memos? Do CBS research their sources, or do the ones they feel bolster their politics and help shape their vision of the news get the pre-approved express shuttle to broadcast? What other fact checking are they tossing to the wind? That's why people are making a big stink about it.<br><br>

Investigate away--I have nothing against doing that at all. But the central political issue is whether we elect Bush or Kerry, not whether Dan Rather keeps his job. To make Rather the central issue is no doubt satisfying because Rather is so easy to dislike, but it's a side show. The unfortunate point is that the blood from the feeding frenzy around Rather just hides the central political issue.<br><br>Having said that, though, it doesn't seem to me relevant at all to pursue Bush's actions back in the 60s and 70s. The American people, I think, know that Bush has sleazed his way through life, in regard to his business dealings as well as in regard to the Guard. They seem not to care. So let it disappear from the horizon--it's irrelevant, even if you want to draw a character flaw sort of issue (you know, as in the recognition that the same guy who sleazed through Vietnam and sleazed through shady business dealings is now sleazing through a war). Apparently "character" doesn't matter.<br><br>

Sleazy, huh? The Clinton years live on!!<br><br>

No doubt. The difference in kind of sleaze is pretty significant, IMHO.<br><br>