Three years ago, I took the bold step of blogging on the Internet. It was not an easy decision because I was letting strangers into my world. Blogging allowed me to openly talk about dating, television shows, music, movies, friends, life, and frustrations. I felt comfortable putting my thoughts out there and did not worry about people lashing out at me or anyone close to me. There’s no censorship in blogging, I can say whatever I want, whether or not anyone agrees with me. It gave people an insight as to who I am.
I really enjoy blogging. I found people who loved the same television shows and could get their thoughts on the show. I received feedback from people on what I could do with my career. Blogging opened my door to the world a little wider. However, as the years have gone by, as you may have noticed, I’ve blogged less and have become more guarded about what I say. I feel like what I say might come back and bite me in the butt. It sucks that I even feel like this.
Blogging is a whole ‘nother level, it takes a lot of effort for people who are not writers, yet they enjoy writing enough to want to put their words on the screen to let the world read about their thoughts, experiences, and just what they think about life. Sometimes they come back to their blog and find a hasty or brash comment about what they’ve just written.
I religiously read a lot of blogs on a daily basis. Some are written by people that I don’t know, and they have no idea who I am. Yet, I feel some kind of bond because they’re letting me into their world, and giving me the opportunity to snoop into theirs. As time goes by, I’ve noticed these bloggers are writing less. I think it has a lot to do with the comments. When I comment, I try to keep in mind what my mom said to me, “If you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all.” I’m not going to say that I’ve never said a mean thing about anyone else because I have said crap about some people, some I regret, some I think deserve it, but that’s not the point. What happened to common courtesy?
For instance, there’s a website I check quite religiously that targets women and covers everything from fashion, beauty, health, fitness, dating, relationships, sex, love, everything you can imagine that women want to know about. There was one blog in particular that I started checking every single day because it was about a girl describing what it’s like to jump back in the dating world after breaking up with her long-time love. It was good at first, but then she started writing less and less, simply because people were so judgmental about the choices that she made. Eventually she quit writing, and the website brought on a new blogger.
The new person was a guy blogging about being single, living and teaching in LA while looking for love in all the wrong places. Granted, if you’re a guy writing about your love life and you’re a guy on a woman dominated website, that’s just asking for trouble. There have been some things that he’s said that I don’t agree with, but like I always say, it’s his life, his mistakes, he’ll eventually learn from them. But it’s really mind-blowing as to how far some women on the website go to defame his character. And the only thing I’m thinking when I read some of these harsh comments is, why you are even reading this blog in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised if he chose to quit blogging soon. Quite honestly, it’s nice to read about a guy’s perspective on dating on a website for women because it gives me a new insight on how a guy might think!
It always comes down to, well, if you don’t like what the person’s writing about, then why are you even reading it in the first place? Really! Why are you even wasting yours and my time writing a comment? I think comments can take the fun out of blogging. How can we keep this from getting out of hand? What happens when this starts affecting people’s lives?
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Hello Erin:
I think that if bloggers have to have thick skin because of what might be said in the comments, then we should realize that goes both ways: Those who read or comment should be prepared for the post that might rip their thick skin off.
I think that there’s a drive to reach an equilibrium of some sort in these discussion forums, and therefore a resistance to what is perceived as extreme. But I think we have to put that drive in check sometimes, because if you really look around we’ve “settled” for a lot. I’m not just talking about deafness and deaf-related things here, though of course there are many examples: an underperforming educational system, discrimination in hiring, etc.
But we’ve also settled for it in the world outside of deafness. People being killed in wars. A planet falling apart. How often do we walk around in the fog of “That’s the way it is” or “Sh*t happens” or “There’s nothing I can do about it so why bother discussing it? It’s so negative!” That’s our thick skin. And every once in a while if we keep reading these blogs we’re going to encounter someone who DOESN’T think “that’s the way it is.” Or at least that that’s the way it has to be.
If the status quo is replaced by a breathing, living, seething teeter-totter of demands for facts and passionate emotion, I say great! I say to hell with that suffocating, smothering status quo, that black thick denial, that fog of sleepy poison we’ve come to call air.
I’ll take this any day. This is real.
Thick skin is an understatement. You need flame-proof armor nowadays considering how some people are a wee tad bit overly sensitive.
Hell, you need Battlestar Galactic nuclear warhead-resistant bulkheads.
I do understand when it comes to doing a blog on a site such as the deaf dc site, you definitely do have to have thick skin. But often times when someone starts on your personal character, that’s when it is about to get out of hand.
But when people do it on your personal site, I think that’s gone too far and wonder why they’re even wasting their time reading the blog in the first place.
though I do like the link that Ben M sent. it’s kind of funny.
That’s the big mystery. Why do people continue to read a blog they don’t like in the first place? Why bother reading at all? What’s more puzzling is why one would bother commenting at all but only to see them keep coming back again and again? Usually it’d be in the form of harassing the blogger or other comment posters that causes them to keep coming back. Why they can not just simply leave if they don’t like the blog in the first place?
The only way to keep comments from getting out of hand is that you have to monitor what’s going on. Or you have the choice of turning off comments altogether if you want. Of course, if you’re going to monitor comments you need to find your own tolerance and flexibility by setting up your own rules to follow by. Of course, no one is perfect even though you try and exemplify that very same cordial behavior elsewhere.
But the biggest irony of all is that some people actually believe they have the rights to make their own comments in your blog and can say whatever they want but when it gets edited or deleted (or banned for continued violation of your rules you’ve outlined). They would then probably proceed to scream about their freedom of speech being violated when it’s really about the privileges to access somebody’s else blog and make comments.
As for affecting people’s lives, not exactly sure what you asking but maybe you can clarify or expand that a bit further.
Google “Kathy Sierra Death Threat” — http://www.google.com/search?q.....ath+threat
Pair this up with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and all will be answered.
Hahaha!
Mike, then why do you read Ridor’s blog?
Josh, love the cartoon.
I rarely do. A few times it was about the UbiDuo. The other time it was done by a guest blogger who had my name out.
Was sent this by a friend….and thought it fit here.
There was this Hindu who saw a scorpion floundering around in the water. He decided to save it by stretching out his finger, but the scorpion stung him. The man still tried to get the scorpion out of the water, but the scorpion stung him again.
A man nearby told him to stop saving the scorpion that kept stinging him.
But the Hindu said: “It is the nature of the scorpion to sting. It is my nature to love. Why should I give up my nature to love just because it is the nature of the scorpion to sting?”
Don’t give up loving. Don’t give up your goodness. Even if people around you sting.
But then the Hindu died?
if the Hindu died at least he died lovin’! :)
But technically, he gave up, no? :)
Who cares?! The Hindu got reincarnated back in the great Wheel. If the Wheel approved of his approach to love, the Hindu would get the next step up the Wheel and to Nirvana.
Those of you want to view the story in ASL, check this vlog!
http://jehanne.wordpress.com/2.....y-grandma/
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa.....opart.html
:)
I’m tacking this to the wall above my computer…
One of my favorite pix fits in with this blog entry: Muhammad Ali punctured with arrows (he too suffered a lot of criticism in his time).
http://www.magazine.org/Editor.....vers/3.jpg
Personally, as someone who makes semi-living via writing professionally, I feel that anyone who blogs or vlogs or writes articles in magazines/newspapers all need to understand (and accept) that they are providing a product for the world to read, analyze and comment.
For you (Erin) to say that you put out a blog and then complain about the content of some of comments…well, it goes with the territory. You’re not exactly writing a private diary, ya know?
I also used to write a regular column for Deaf Life magazine about ten years ago, and I wrote for them for about three years. I got all kinds of comments, both good and bad. It’s part of life…and part of the joys of living in a democracy.
You also wondered why some people would leave negative comments on a blog that they don’t like…well…you notice how people will ALWAYS slow down to look at an accident site or a car breakdown or somebody getting ticketed? I mean, these things happen all the time, yet drivers will slow down anyway and cause a traffic backup, just to gawk at what’s happening on the side of the road.
Also, while Howard Stern had his radio show, he had lots of listeners who HATED him, and yet couldn’t stop themselves from listening to his show and responding.
If you don’t want people to comment on your blogs, you’re in the wrong business, honey. Can’t write a blog and then dictate the type of comments you get.
Sure you can. It is however their blog and each blogger has every right to edit, delete, or ban commenters. If they have rules regarding use of foul language or personal attacks against other commenters, blogger, or guest blogger you can limit the responses accordingly. Where does it say that you have freedom of speech on commenting in the comment section?
It’s called “moderating.”
Howard Stern’s name is spelled incorrectly, it is Ricky Taylor. *grins*
The issue that should be noted here is the difference between a private blog and a somewhat public or professional blog.
While I would never condone a personal attack on a blogger in either category the fact is bloggers who post for and with the intent to distribute information to the public or even a segment of the community are liable for what they write.
Perfect example are the writers here on DeafDC this is not a private blog these are public posts intended for the Deaf DC community and as such if the deaf community disagrees with an opinion or a post we should leave a comment saying as such.
Personal attacks are never justified but some bloggers should not be writing or sharing their opinions publicly because they can be harmful or otherwise spread wrong information.
But who decides that, Bobby? If one writer shares that a deaf guy was shot in Detroit while holding a rake but doesn’t share that he was high on crack, meanwhile another writer shares that he was high on crack but not that some media sources had come to conclude that in recent years Detroit police officers had begun shooting people at a rate higher than that of much bigger cities, which writer is more harmful? Which one is spreading the “wrong” information?
I know you mean this generally but I think the solution here is read everything you can, develop a healthy sense of skepticism, but also strive to make sure that your healthy sense of skepticism isn’t blatant denial in disguise.
I think we need to clarify two things - context and relevancy. The former case is a contextual one, and the latter is a relevancy one.
When I write something, I always ask myself, is this really relevant, and provides clearer context to the topic?
Inserting ‘Some media sources have concluded that in recent years, blah blah’ in regards of the Shaw shooting, in my opinion is irrelevant. Why? Because the shooting while tragic, was justified. So what if the Detroit police started to shoot people at higher rate than the other cities? That has nothing to do with a shooting that was found to be justified.
Now if you were writing about a shooting that was found to be unjustified, then that phrase WOULD be relevant and provides clearer context.
But how do we know it was justified? Especially since we just recently talked about how we as citizens hundreds of miles away have two primary ways of knowing that: the media and the court findings. You and I have both found common ground to agree that both are suspect.
You know, this isn’t a case of like, the media gets it right 99% of the time and the courts get it right 99% of the time. I don’t know how to come up with an exact figure but I too saw how the media got many things wrong during the Gallaudet protest and continues to get it wrong (or at least show a lot more bias in favor of one side over the other) no matter how many times people on the losing end of that battle meet with them to try to set it right.
DP all I’m hoping for here is what you already told me before. Yes there are problems with both the media and court communication. So you decide to assume it was justified, and I decide to assume it wasn’t. Either of us could be right. The cops in Detroit might have lied too. Any one of a million things that resulted in the perception that the shooting was justifed might have in reality been numerous or even one misperception. And that doesn’t even begin to address whether or not “shooting” is the only option. It just addresses what we blog about and what our perceptions and feelings are.
Chris, it was NOT disputed that the guy was holding a rake above his head, and that he was high.
If facts are disputed, then I will be skeptical.
DP, I also have to say, I don’t agree with this:
“So what if the Detroit police started to shoot people at higher rate than the other cities? That has nothing to do with a shooting that was found to be justified.”
How can you say that? If Detroit is smaller than City X, but its police officers are killing people at a higher rate than the officers in City X, that sets up all kinds of assumptions. And the assumption that the officers of Detroit are increasingly leaning towards a violent response as the only and appropriate answer is definitely a valid assumption. If the assumption is correct it throws everything else into doubt, including the conclusion that the shooting was justified. Think about the racial profiling that goes on in this country whether our police forces want to admit it does or not. Do you remember that recent story about how a large perecentage of stops at a particular intersection involved black motorists? And then when that was brought to light, lo and behold, there weren’t as many stops involving black motorists at that particular intersection henceforth.
What, does that mean that all the former stops were still “justified?”
It’d make for a rather interesting statistic…that type of information would quickly get around the Deaf community, and when recommending which states or cities to live in, I could see a day when Deaf people will tell each other, “Suggest you avoid Detroit…Detroit has extremely high rate of cops who kill Deaf people!”
No. If the police were doing racial profiling, then the stops weren’t justified.
I think we should explore all possible, likely to be valid reasons for why things are happening, instead of just immediately assuming the worst, which seems to be what is happening here.
Yes but here and only here I think that given the circumstances and the realities we live in, I think it IS necessary, and that’s what I’m going to soon argue under Stuckless’ post.
PS the Face Reality post is from me, Chris. I used that heading in the Starbucks Test blog in reply to someone’s post about brain damage or something…
I love the end of your comment as you stated:
“I know you mean this generally but I think the solution here is read everything you can, develop a healthy sense of skepticism, but also strive to make sure that your healthy sense of skepticism isn’t blatant denial in disguise.”
That is a very valid and good point, those of us who read should take the time to get as much information from as manys ources as possible and maintain a healthy sense of skepticism. I could not agree with you more.
However I also believe that bloggers and this does not include bloggers who have their own personal sites but bloggers such as the one in this example who blog on a site with a targeted audience should be more careful in what they post and why.
I agree. I want to repeat I knew exactly what I was doing in my post, I take full responsibility for it, and I believe I was justified in doing so. I’ll soon defend my position with a final series of arguments, and I hope you’ll stay updated with that. And then I guess we’ll have to agree where we can and disagree where we don’t, and if that’s uncomfortable for us, maybe that’s necessary sometimes.
A blogger has every right to spread harmful or wrong information on their blog. The thing is, the injured party has every right to sue if libel and defamation is the case. The question is, does the blogger think he/she has enough money to defend against a lawsuit?
It is either you have a healthy respect regarding libel and defamation or you don’t. The later will certainly be an example of Murphy’s Law bound to happen sooner rather than later.
I don’t agree, McConnell. Bloggers are subject to rules of journalistic practices (including libel, slander, etc).
If a blogger consistently spreads harmful or wrong information, his/her credibility will be shot and smart/wise readers will begin avoiding that blogger OR tell others that this blogger is unreliable.
And while that blogger is spreading harmful or wrong information, sooner or later, someone will sue. It’s just matter of time.
Um, I believe you completely missed what I’ve been saying. You also agreed that it would be a matter of time til a blogger get sued if he/she continues with the libelous nature of writing. This is what I’ve been saying. No?
First of all bloggers do not have to follow journalistic practices. Some do, some don’t. Please tell where I can find this “rule” stating that bloggers must follow journalistic practices.
As for libel and defamation, bloggers can pretty much do what they want. The point is they can write libelous or defamatory materials if they think they can get away with it. It’d be, as I have I said (and you,too) a matter of time til that person get sued (aka Murphy’s law).
It is NOT illegal to write libelous materials but rather whether a party feels they have been injured and are willing to file a lawsuit and get restitution or a judge’s order for stoppage.
Ketcham - “If a blogger consistently spreads harmful or wrong information, his/her credibility will be shot and smart/wise readers will begin avoiding that blogger.”
Tell me, when has the issue of credibility (or even reputation) ever stopped bloggers from blogging and continually spread mis/disinformation or readers stop reading such vile blogs? And whoever says bloggers are smart enough to know the difference or show a healthy respect on the issue of libel and defamation when it comes to blogging?
You ever notice that some blogs earn praise for their content while others don’t?
Credibility of a blog and respect of a blog will lead other people to quote that blog and be referred to that blog.
I personally avoid many blogs because of their weaknesses with credibility and factual information. I don’t want to name them, but they are out there and I refuse to go to these blogs, because I am a believer in responsible journalism.
As for journalistic rules…trust me, they do apply to blogs (as well as vlogs). I.e., grammar rules, quality of content, reliability of factual information, naming of sources, etc etc.
Any blogger who thinks otherwise is simply kidding himself/herself.
“As for journalistic rules…trust me, they do apply to blogs (as well as vlogs). I.e., grammar rules, quality of content, reliability of factual information, naming of sources, etc etc.”
Of course, then again where does it say that bloggers MUST abide by these “journalistic rules” (noting that even the MSM isn’t so keen about these rules sometimes)?
It’s up to each blogger on how he/she wants to write. Really. If you have a desire to show factual content and have these desires for jounalistic ethics, then fine.
Many readers do not even care for blogs that do not contain facutal information, follow grammar rules, or even the fact that credibility isn’t high on their list but perhaps more so on reputation. You can be the crappiest blogger on earth and have a reputation to uphold but credibility-wise is utter garbage.
Credibility and reputation are in the eyes of the readers.
If you want to be the responsbile type in reporting (rather than journalism per se) then that’s your prerogative and comfort zone.
From citizen journalism myth to citizen journalism realities.
http://reinventing.collegemedi......php?id=57
You have editorials and you have stories based on what’s supposed to be a neutral presentation of “all” the facts. Remember that. I would say that overall the blogsphere does about as well as “real” newspapers.
And the lines sometimes blur between what’s fact and what’s opinion (or even bias/prejudice). I think it can be VERY hard to determine which is which.
McConnell: I’m sorry I have to ask…what’s “MSM”?
mainstream media. NYTimes, LA Times, Wash Post, Time, PBS, etc. The big guys.
Michele, actually MSM is known for: Foxnews, CBNnews, Washington Time, WSJ, NY Post and so on and so on.
As usual, Mike misguided you with his “MSM” comment, I’m sad to say.
Huh? I didn’t see anything misguiding there. He mentioned some well-known news sources, you mentioned some others.
The phrase “mainstream media” itself is misleading, but this has nothing to do with Mike. A better name would be “traditional media”.
Why? Because traditional media has become little more than stenographers. They simply repeat what their sources say, with little or no effort to verify the accuracy of what they report. As a result, public opinion has gotten so far out of sync with what traditional media reports that traditional media no longer reflects mainstream opinion.
We have become increasingly skeptical of traditional media, with good reason.
Fox News, CBNnews, Washington Times, WSJ, NY Post, NYTimes, LA Times, Wash Post, Time, PBS represent traditional news sources - but they’re no longer “mainstream”.
Oscar created a vlog in response to Erin’s blog:
http://oscartheobserver.blogsp.....r-not.html
I found the comments to the vlog illuminating.
Imagine though if we all started taking down the things we wrote with great emotion because we concluded they were too emotional. That would have an impact too, because many of the best things I’ve ever read contained a great deal of emotion.
Emotion is a part of what we are. Not just reason. The uneasy mixture of those two things is what we SHOULD be exploring. Not limiting.
Blogging has “journalistic” rules?
Since when does your neighbor’s 14-year-old daughter have to fulfill the same journalistic requirements that Walter Cronkite had to fulfill? A kid blogging about how she has a crush on a boy (or girl) in a math class is probably not going to be picked up by any syndicated news outlet. And chances are, no journalistic entity will even touch it - unless the kid displays prodigious writing skills.
As for why there exists people who go around trashing blogs, there’s a bunch of reasons. But more often than not, a person who sends a negative comment will in all probability want to incur a reaction from you or the audience. Or they may be jealous of an idea you presented. Or jealous of the way you write. Or project some form of “inferior complex” towards you because they think your writing(s) suffer from some academic flaw.
I’ve been blogging for barely 3 weeks now, although I cut my teeth at BlogCritics. I wouldn’t recommend a first-time blogger posting blogs to a site such as BC, just because of all the comments that spew forth once an article is published. I learned the hard way about what not to write or how to present it, although I’m still learning. Nothing prepared me for the amount of reactions I got from some of my articles, which in hindsight, I wish I had avoided a few mistakes (such as making generalizations) that I made.
In the end, I decided my blog is not about you, or any critics or anyone else on the planet. My blog is about me, my perspectives, my thoughts and my feelings. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. If you like it, cool.
Anyway, you can learn something from comments, but it seems to take experience (in my case, a painful one at that)in knowing which ones to acknowledge as valid, constructive commentary. I’m still learning that, too.
By the way, I enjoyed the article. It was well-written, and something I appreciated reading (thanks to my friend who sent me this article).
Paotie
For the record, we’re talking about some blogs that focus on news, as opposed to a 14-year old girl talking about her latest crush.
McConnell was saying that these types of blogs are free to “spread harmful or wrong information” and I disagreed with him. If a blog talks about something that’s newsworthy, then in interests of credibility, it should be as accurate as possible. Otherwise people are going to catch the errors and lose faith in that particular blogger’s ability to disseminate reliable information.
Hence in this type of situation, journalistic standards do apply.
There are many blogs that do spread wrong information. There are many blogs that do spread harmful information. There are news outlet who have spread harmful information and even wrong ones. Sometimes without even acknowledging their errors.
But for bloggers they are FREE to do what they want. The consequences are theirs alone should they decide to libel or defame somebody or a group or company. Or they can choose the high road and maintain a blog with “journalistic integrity.” It is a choice. They are free to do what they want with their blogs. There are no “rules” per se but just common sense.
For the record, name some personal blogs you think they maintain their “journalistic standards.”
OK. Personal blogs that maintain journalistic standards are:
-Trudy Suggs’ blog in http://www.i711.com (as well as http://www.tswservices.com
-Kevin McLeod’s blog in http://www.i.711.com (he also has his own blog…can’t remember the address at the moment…it’s in Live Journal.)
-Chris Heuer’s articles in DeafDC.com
-Shane Feldman’s articles in DeafDC.com
This is just a quick list of the best that I can think off the top of my head.
I said “personal” blogs where you’re not under pressure from anyone except your own. Of course if you going to run blog owned by i711 you’ll need to have some journalistic common sense. DeafDC pretty much falls into that category somewhat. As for Kevin McLeod’s. I personally know him since the days we both met as students at Gally. :)
Anybody care to cite some personal blogs by deaf/hh bloggers that show journalistic standards? I know of one.
Anyone?
It’s still a blog whether it’s your own or under another website.
By the way, correction on Trudy’s website address:
http://www.tswriting.com
And Kevin McLeod’s personal blog on LiveJournal is:
http://deafscribe.livejournal.com
So, McConnell, name that “one” blog you feel employs journalistic standards, then.
I, too, have known Kevin McLeod since college, and he’s a good friend of mine.
I was going to say Dave Evan’s Sandman blog but just like Kevin McCleod’s or any other blogs that maintain a sense of “journalistic standards” (already loosely defined in the blogosphere going by on the “credibility” meme) are more like editorial blogs than anything else. On some days, yes, sure, they report what’s going on but then at the same time interject their own personal opinions and bias.
Do journalistic standards include those who write in the first person “I” that is replete in a blog? Such as Kevin’s or Dave’s? Even though both appropriately linked to outside sources while they editorialize in their own blogs?
“Journalistic standards” are a loosely defined as set of “agreements” for bloggers to abide by but like America it’s a melting pot of bloggers out there who do their own thing. Either they damn the “journalistic standards” or they embrace them.
What you have brought up, Michelle, are links to discussions that questions bloggers’ intergrity, credibility, and motives asking questions whether these bloggers are worthwhile to read (ie credibility issue) compared to the MSM who had a monopoly on the news and never really faced challenges from outside until now when viewers became those bloggers who finally had an outlet to challenge those dinosaurs. Such as the infamous Dan Rather’s CBS fake Killian “CYA” Bush memo document that was confirmed by bloggers who had extensive knowledge on the subject and had no compunction to challenge the validity of the CBS memo document.
http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....ment_Index
I was discussing the definition of journalism with a few friends earlier and put it this way:
My standard for journalism is not too complicated. It must contain
facts, the source of those facts must be accessible to the reader, and any analysis of the facts should be well reasoned. Good journalism
should cover the basics - What, Who, When, Where, Why and How?
I was trained to think that good journalism also required objectivity, but since then I’ve seen a lot of so-called journalism that hides bias behind a screen of supposed objectivity. Now I think it’s better to have the writer’s biases out in the open so the reader can take that into consideration when assessing the story. So, yeah, there’s a place for “I” in real journalism.
Regarding the Dan Rather story, I’m sure you’re aware he just sued CBS for $70 million over the matter. So now the available facts will be examined in a court of law, which will presumably will be more rigorous than journalistic standards - particularly Fox News standards.
Yes, I’m very much aware of that. And I’m curious, exactly what would those “facts” be?
As for the “I” in journalism it runs the risk of showing bias and prejudice. That’s not objectivity but subjectivity. It’s about reporting, not editorializing which is what news are about nowadays.
One clear and available fact from the 60 Minutes story broadcast in 2004 is that Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes said he had pulled strings to get W in the National Guard after a family friend asked for help to keep him out of Vietnam. That’s essentially what the story was about.
Barnes’ statement was one line of evidence. Other lines were based on copied documents, because the originals were mysteriously unavailable. Pundits focused on the authenticity of the copies. But there wasn’t so much attention given to the substance of the story, where other arrows pointed toward a conclusion that Bush did, indeed, effectively dodge service in Vietnam by slacking in the Guard.
Rather’s lawsuit will provide his lawyers with discovery powers, and perhaps other lines of evidence will emerge. Time will tell.
McConnell, the use of “I” in journalism would fall under editorials…therefore most of blogs would also be considered editorials, since you pointed out that they do mix opinions with facts.
Which was why they (CBS/Rather) were desperate on getting that fake Bush memo out front of the tv camera not realizing it wasn’t authentic, even if it was copied. The original memo was proven beyond a doubt it was a fake (though it was copied and given to Rather from a mysterious “source”). Rather was falling over himself believing it was authentic and made himself (and CBS) the joke of the year. With that it exposed Rather his questionable journalistic practices who was desperate to try and paint Bush in any negative light as possible. Let’s say he bit off more than he could choose and was simply overly enthusiatic to get the story out he never bothered to verify the memo’s authenticity to such a degree that would have prevented him all this embarrassment. As he once said very recently that he is “big on responsibilty.” He failed. Simple as that. But certainly I’m sure everybody will want to see what the court will have to say.
choose = chew
How is it possible that the originals were “proven” to be fake if they were unavailable?
If any of the evidence was falsified, I would expect that to come out in court. I think we’d do well to wait and see how well the claims of falsified documents hold up under judicial scrutiny.
Numerous experts have deemed the copy of the “original memo” was deemed as a false one. No one has the “original memo” in hand.
The way it was typed did not not reflect the year it was typed which was supposed to have been in 1973. The fonts that was seen in the copy did not even exist in 1973. It’s been shown and proven already by “font experts” who know about the history of typewriters.
Type the memo word for word using the Microsoft Word document shows the spacings and fonts identical in every respect. The date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same.
I tried it using the pdf file of the memo and typing it out on my computer. Overlay them together and they fit perfectly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/.....gust18.pdf
And here was the result…
Results if you overlay the Microsoft word and the pdf file of the memo:
http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....-word2.gif
A typography expert who weighed in on this fake document.
“I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers..”
http://web.archive.org/web/200...../index.htm
This is an excellent read. This is the kind of thing that will destroy Dan Rather defense if he continue to say that the document is authentic in a court of law.
Here’s a better overlay.
http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....nimate.gif
The one with the “sprinkles” of dots and such is the purported “authentic” document versus over a Microsoft Word document.
So, that CBS “memo” is a fraud as are all of the “Killian” memos. It has been proven beyond all doubt. Simply impossible that these documents were created on any machine available in the 1970s. And yet Dan Rather and his lawyers are actually planning to argue in their lawsuit against CBS that the phony memos are genuine!!
You want to talk about journalistic standards go down in flames? You’re seeing it right now. And it’ll be a fireball once it hits the court.
1) Your focus is on the authenticity of COPIES of the original records.
2) The point of Rather’s report was Bush’s efforts to evade the Vietnam draft by doing pseudoservice in the National Guard. The documents in question were only one line of evidence of this evasion, and obsessing over this one line only serves to divert attention from other compelling lines of evidence.
3) It’s entirely possible that Rather was set up and fed bad evidence to damage his reputation. Whatever the case, he certainly could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by doing more due diligence on the evidence.
4) A key question remains - what happened to the original records? Perhaps one aim of Rather’s lawsuit is to find out. If the original records are located - not likely, I assume they’ve been destroyed by now - then the matter of the copies becomes moot.
5) I don’t see any point in debating the issue further until the court case has played out. Let’s see where the evidence leads, then revisit the question.
Um, CBS doesn’t have the original document. Neither does Dan Rather.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....39_pf.html
The forged document is supposedly the exact replica of the original. Copied exactly word for word. Font for font. Space by space. The total and exact copy. Or are you telling me that photocopying has a way of turning a 1973 printed document looking exactly like Microsoft Word?
Had it been the original document you’d have discussions on the age and kind of paper used for the memo which would then help authentic the memo. Along with authentic signature and correct type fonts and spacing seen on typewriters used in the early 1970s.
From Washington Post:
“CBS management “coerced” the veteran news anchor “into publicly apologizing and taking personal blame for alleged journalistic errors in the broadcast,” says the $70 million suit, which also names Sumner Redstone, chief executive of the network’s then-parent company, Viacom; CBS Chairman Les Moonves; and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward.
Several former colleagues said they were baffled by the move. “I think he’s gone off the deep end,” said Josh Howard, who was forced to resign as executive producer of “60 Minutes II” after CBS retracted the story. “He seems to be saying he was just the narrator.
“He did every interview. He worked the sources over the phone. He was there in the room with the so-called document experts. He argued over every line in the script. It’s laughable.”
Kevin, he is trying to restore his damaged reputation and will go so far (according to his lawyers) that the documents are authentic. I’ve shown everybody here how that is not the case. It’s the oft repeated meme “fake but accurate” used by Dan Rather. He wants to believe his own story but cannot prove it. Even with the already discredited (according to an independent panel who covered this whole “Memogate”) Killian memos they criticized Dan Rather on the shoddy story and attempt to pass off fake documents as authentic to viewers.
“After serving as “CBS Evening News” anchor for a quarter-century, Rather agreed to relinquish the chair in November 2004, weeks before an outside panel criticized him and top network executives for airing a badly flawed story charging that Bush had received favorable treatment from the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s. He said at the time that he was stepping down voluntarily, but says in the lawsuit that CBS had “terminated” his anchor duties the day after Bush was reelected.”
Same link as above.
I agree. Let the court do this. Already Dan has gone off the deep end still believing in a story that could never be fully proven hanging on to his every fantasy “fake but accurate” story byline.