(With apologies to the late Douglas Adams.)
“But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”
I can confirm that the BBC’s Ceefax service did report on CBS’s retraction of the Bush memos.
“Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”
The story appeared yesterday on page 120.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
For foreign readers unfamiliar with Ceefax, the BBC’s teletext information service, the main stories usually appear on pages 104 through to, say, 113, after a summary of headlines on pages 100-103. A slot on page 120 means ‘not important’.
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
This story appeared as one of a rotating clutch of stories under the the exciting group heading “Other News”.
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
Even within that it didn’t get its own headline. It was the second of two pages.
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
The first page of the two being a report of disparaging remarks about Bush made by the British ambassador to Italy.
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.'”
In other words if you laboriously waited for all the “other news” stories to rotate through you would eventually see a headline saying “UK Envoy’s Bush barb made public”. If you then selected and read that story and then waited for about three times as long as it takes to read you would eventually see the [1/2] in the bottom right corner change to [2/2] and you would discover (to your very great surprise if you are the sort of person who heads eagerly to stories that demonstrate the lack of esteem for Bush on the part of sophisticated people) that the revelatory memos about Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard were forgeries.
When the BBC thought they were genuine they merited a high-number headline on the main index page and a story all to themselves. As I said before, it is simple justice that a report saying evidence for an accusation was forged should have equal prominence with the report of the original accusation.
As technology, Ceefax is past it. But it remains useful to many people: those who do not have internet access or those for whom turning on the internet is troublesome. Ceefax gives these people a quick summary of the news available at any time. Unfortunately the summary is often skewed.
In a dizzying, energising and raucous return to the pamphleteering days of the 18th and 19th centuries, the people have, through the worldwide web and easy-to-use publishing software, been given a voice. They will not easily be silenced. (The ‘Scotsman’)
Yep!
The wonderful role of the blogosphere in Rathergate has highlighted not just the cocoon around the mainstream media (including the Beeb who neglected the story for so long), but also Dan Rather’s lack of sanity.
He insists these documents aren’t forged, oh no. It’s just that CBS “News” can’t vouch for them.
It looks like the omnipotent Lt George Bush had some sort of time travel machine that could whisk a computer with Microsoft Word on it back to 1972!
Laughable!
What’s the definition of “ambivalence”? Does the BBC know?
Article headlined “Arabs ambivalent about Iraqi hostage taking”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684324.stm
But later on, the BBC says 93 percent of Arabs in their phone-in survey approved of the hostage taking!!!!!!
But…but..this cannot be. No, no, no!
BBC apologists here assured us this story was unworthy of our attention.
And speaking of the dinosaur’s arse, where’s Reith?
Sorry to disagree but I think the article is a steaming pile of pants. ‘Open source journalism’ is certainly increasingly read, but largely for amusement and as a souce of scurrilous rumours to spread in the pub. As the man said ‘everyone has a megaphone’ and those who feel most need to use it are usually those who feel that existing media doesn’t express their opinions and concerns.
Now it might be that this is because the existing media is in the hands of a vast capitalist/liberal conspiracy that is suppressing reality for it’s own sinister ends. Or it might be that these people are cranks who are waaaay to the right/left of the sane and rational majority.
I can’t believe that anyone in search of hard, factually accurate news would consider getting it anywhere other than from one of the ‘traditional’ sources. If I’m wrong then I’m actually quite scared.
“I can’t believe that anyone in search of hard, factually accurate news would consider getting it anywhere other than from one of the ‘traditional’ sources.”
Rich • it looks like the whole ‘lesson’ of Rathergate has been lost on you. A ‘traditional’ source (CBS “News”) reports a completely faked story about a President in the final weeks of an election campaign (possibly with the connivance of elements within the Kerry camp).
Another ‘traditional’ source, the BBC, jumps onto the initial false story less than a day after the CBS 60 Minutes II broadcast, but then fails to report the CBS fraud for days.
So one ‘traditional’ source would have given you a lie, the other wouldn’t have let you know what was going on (about the fraud) at all.
Meanwhile, the blogosphere was uncovering the fraud and reporting on it.
Check the links on http://www.rathergate.com • happy surfing.
Michael, I appreciate your point but I think this is the exception that proves the rule. I have no idea what Rathergate is all about as I’ve long since tired of the banality of the ‘character focussed’ point scoring of the US election but I’m sure that blogs played a big role.
I’m thinking more of the bigger news stories where archive material is required to provide context, good presentation is required to provide clarity, rumour and myth are treated as just that and a big budget and influence are needed to obtain the requisite level of access. In my experience the blog approach is for some bloke to repeat the rumours he wants to believe, add a bit of his entirely unrepresentative personal experience and wrap it up in an ungrammatical mess.
Rich,
Enjoy your ignorance! Knowing GWB was going to win for months before the press started with “GWB large lead in polls” articles has almost certainly made me some nice betting winnings! I’ll be cracking open the champers come Nov. Thanks to the BBC + other MSM misleading articles the odds were artificially made more affordable for me.
As for reading online it doesn’t take much work to fact-check, and once you get in the habit of checking both MSM and blogs you inevitably come to conclusion that it’s a pity our lazy journos don’t bother to do any real journalism (i.e. checking press releases before forwarding them) like bloggers do. Well (except for the BBC who can still inprison people to extract money) their loss!
“Enjoy your ignorance! Knowing GWB was going to win for months before the press started with “GWB large lead in polls” articles has almost certainly made me some nice betting winnings!” Crikey! Rob, I think you should share the name of your bookmaker…
Rich • I’m sorry, but if you’re not up to speed on Rathergate, then I cannot give too much credence to your belief that the article is “a steaming pile of pants”.
Rathergate has exposed the mainstream media for political bias, shoddy (non-existent) fact checking, and unethical behaviour. “The Emperor has no clothes!”
The sheer effrontery of CBS to brag about the five years of research that went into this “story” when any computer user familiar with Word can spot the inconsistencies in their “evidence” is breath taking.
Of course these big budget news departments can devote resources to a story that a humble blogger can only dream about. But all too often the biases prevalent in the mainstream media mean that while they have wet dreams about doing a Woodward/Bernstein-type expose of shenanigans in a right-wing administration, they will completely bury equivalent stories on the other side of the political spectrum.
The problem I have with this is that the big media companies still break the news. While I don’t necessarily believe what they say, the role of the blogosphere is fact-checking. Until it moves beyond that into actually driving the news agenda, it will always be the second place people look.
Case in point: Despite the bias, I still go to the BBC website every day for news, although the bias is increasingly infuriating. After that, I check the blogs I read daily to see if there is any controversy, incorrect reporting, and for opinion pieces. If I cut out the middleman, I wouldn’t get the context. The blogosphere is currently limited to commentary on the news, rather than breaking the stories, with a couple of notable exceptions, of course.
Just my 2c,
Andrew • good point.
Although the Rathergate scandal (a big news story for the mainstream media, even if the Beeb studiously ignored it for so long) was broken in the blogosphere, I suppose until the bloggers start breaking stories that regular journalists haven’t been able to get, the fact-checking aspect will remain the bloggers forte.
However, such is the level of deceit in the mainstream media with Rathergate, Andrew Gilligan, Piers Moron, Jayson Blair etc., that it seems bloggers will have a lot to get their teeth into!
I have been frustrated by the (in my opinion) really big stories of recent years in the area of corporate malfeasance that have not been broken at all in the ‘big’ media. The Enron ship hit the rocks before there was much interest in the mainstream media (outside of the financial newspapers). Going further back, Robert Maxwell plundered his company’s pension fund, right from under the noses of the Daily Mirror gumshoes.
Seeing the near-retirement age people caught up in those scandals (whose financial nest-egg vanished from under them) was heart rending.
Perhaps the bloggers from the left side of the political spectrum could shine a light in those areas rather than their usual anti-globalisation tirades?
Michael,
That’s a decent idea, however I’ve never found a left wing blog that’s remotely interesting. Reading and arguing about the turgid theoretical dirge that passes for left wing thought really has no appeal – hence the right wing dominance of the internet.
Similarly there seems to be a lack of blogs emanating from the rational political centre both for the reasons above and because the ground is already covered by the mainstream media. Let’s face it, journalism isn’t a bad career so those with a real talent are likely to be in the ‘real thing’ if they have relatively sane politics rather than churning it out on the web.
In contrast right wing opinion always sparks an interesting discussion, the more barking the better. This place is at its best when the real nutters turn up.
theghostofredken,
“Rob, I think you should share the name of your bookmaker”
I made a private bet with my business partner (who relies on the BBC). He has now conceded defeat.
The ChicagoBoys Blog has links to betting sites. To buy a dollar bet Bush is near 70c/$ and Kerry is near 30c/$ so you can see who the markets think will be winning…
Rich: I rather think that the left-wing blogs are so boring because so many of them censor their comments sections.
Andrew
Perhaps if Drudge and LGF etc were guaranteed an annual budget of some £2.5bn then they might be able to break more stories.
“really big stories of recent years in the area of corporate malfeasance that have not been broken at all in the ‘big’ media.”
I remember first reading about Iran/Contra in a little mimeographed ‘zine in about ’83-84. “No way our government could have been up to that.” Until I saw Ollie and Poindexter testifying on TV in ’86. Mind you, the big media still hasn’t disclosed the drugs trafficking corner of that triangle yet…maybe in about 10 more years.
And like in the film Men in Black…I have seriously seen “outrageous” stories from Weekly World News (used to read it for entertainment purposes) end up becoming mainstream stories a few years later. Weird.
I’m here Wally, laughing at you and your dinosaur’s arse (yes, your bum does look big in it).
Yes, this is still a big non-story, and the tub-thumping of the bloggers is overdone since I doubt the other parts of the media, i.e. Fox, would have ignored it for long.
Bottom line: It’s another example of how introspective political coverage has become, on both sides of the pond.
Frankly I think the deaths of 1,000+ Allied soldiers, dozens of hostages, 30,000+ Iraqi civilians and scores of barbarian terrorists is far more important than this hogwash from the chattering classes.
That won’t stop Rather and CBS doing a “60 Minutes” special on how they were duped, rather than reporting some real news.
Reith: Ah yes, there you are — the wrong end of the telescope poking out of the wrong end of the animal. Again.
The carnage to come among the American alphabets will dwarf BBC/Dyke/Gilligan. The bloggers have fired a 21st-century shot heard around the world — but you missed it, didn’t you?
So there you sit, like some down-market Nelson unable to see the signal. This story is about violation of public trust and includes all the building blocks of news and propaganda — content, context and integrity. The media’s self-annointed tribunes of the people just don’t do well in daylight; this story shows it all. It matters. And you don’t have a clue. Oh well.
As for the smug preening (‘Frankly I think the deaths of 1,000+ …yada…yada…yada’), well, it must be just great up there, all alone on the moral high ground. Down here on earth all we hear is a red herring flapping.
Ah Wally, enjoy the red herring, quickly pan fried in its own juices with a twist of lemon, tis delicious.
“The bloggers have fired a 21st century shot, etc etc etc”, What a load of self-satisfied Codswallop.
Bloggers have been firing shots like this for some years now, even in the 20th century, and right back to the 7th (remember the Venerable Bede?)
I haven’t missed a thing, I’ve just viewed it with realism rather than looking through your dinosaur’s arse with rose-tinted spectacles on.
As for being on the moral high ground, well, everyone’s got to be somewhere.
Plop! went the dinosaur, trying to polish a turd.
Self-satisfied? Only if I were a blogger; I’m not. I am glad that a colossal journalistic and political fraud has been outed..but you don’t see that, do you?
As for your boast of realism and your phoney cultural timeline, you might recall — and emulate — Bede’s humility: “Lord, there’s a future for me somewhere, but under which stone does it lie?”
As you say, everyone’s got to be somewhere.
Give it a try.
Sorry Wally, you’ve lost me completely now. I tried following your tangent for a while, but I must admit I’m now completely flummoxed, especially since you’ve now taken to contradicting yourself.
Did Rather deliberately mislead and attempt to defraud? I dunno, it could just as easily be the result of lazy, sloppy and/or complacent journalism.
Conspiracy or cock-up: I take cock-up every time. If you want to see conspiracy under every stone and call it news, that’s your call.
Meanwhile, I’ll stick to the real news back here on Planet Earth.
–I can’t believe that anyone in search of hard, factually accurate news would consider getting it anywhere other than from one of the ‘traditional’ sources. If I’m wrong then I’m actually quite scared.–
Good, maybe you’ll start demanding change.
Because you should be scared.
This CBS thing is very, very big here. It has major political ramifications for the country, in one way, refreshing. The US MSM always touts how “impartial” they are, they are not. They have now been exposed.
They are fighting against open-sourced news. They aren’t the gatekeepers anymore. They must become competitive or they will die. The papers are good for local news, see James Lileks’ earlier The Bleat, but we don’t need them for national or policy news anymore. Now that I, if I want to, can read studies, access work from interested and knowledgeable bloggers, What do I need them for?
Well, if blogs are so insignificant, how come the BBC has one of its own now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3684056.stm
Of course, it being the BBC, they don’t have open comments as most normal blogs do. They “vet” the comments they get for political correctness, just like they do over on (Don’t)Have Your Say aka The Two Minute Hate. Which sort of defeats the purpose of blogs in the first place.
Clueless maroons. But I suppose old habits are hard to break.
As an example of what Sandy P has pointed out: remember when the BBC claimed that the Jessica Lynch rescue story was a Hollywood production complete with blank bullets fired from soldiers’ rifles?
I was on a blog where that was being discussed and within minutes, some people with very detailed knowledge of military firearms began to pick that claim apart, the most interesting detail being that current standard-issue rifles in the US military don’t accommodate blanks. The military would have had to have had the foresight to know that Jessica Lynch would be kidnapped and therefore bring in specially designed rifles to rescue her with in a “fake” rescue effort! highly unlikely.
Journalists are generalists who just don’t have that kind of specialized knowledge. The same thing happened with Rathergate — who knew until now that there were people out there who had specialized knowledge about an IBN Composer electric typewriter that was discontinued decades ago?
Reith
‘Conspiracy or cock-up: I take cock-up every time’
Hey we’re all open minded here but I think the only cock-up on CBS’s part is that they were caught out
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-editorial1sep22,0,2607834.story?coll=all-newsopinion-hed
There’s a basic rule of con artists. “You can’t cheat an honest man”.
Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, wanted the memos to be real so they went for the bait like a pair of hungry trout.
Their fact checking was nonexistent. Evidence and informed opinions contrary to what they wanted to believe was ignored.
Their “unimpeachable source” has turned out to be a bitter partisan with an axe to grind and a history of mental breakdowns. Yet for nearly two weeks they stood by it all.
This story was broken on the blogs and the mainscream media caught on after a day or two. There is nothing that indicates that they would have followed up without the blogs pushing the issue.
We have reached a great moment in news reporting. Now we really can talk back to the television/radio/newspaper. We can do it with blogs in realtime and the media that will survive in this brave new world is the media that pays attention. The deniers will wither on the vine.
Reputable blogs always source their material. When there is any doubt or questions they say so.
When they have published something that is not completely correct or downright wrong they make the corrections and say so.
This is how they maintain their reputation: No stealth edits. No faking post timestamps. No hiding mistakes in the archives. They admit errors and resolve to do better. Would that the MSM would do the same. It would rebuild confidence.
I too check a news site or two to get a general idea of what’s going on. I then hit the blogs to see what I might have missed (what has been buried) and the bonus feature is that I get to exchange ideas with others on the subject at hand.
To the MSM: Blogs are not going to go away. Start likin’ it. Use the new medium to improve yourselves or you surely will go the way of gas lighting. Improve your fact checking and check your bias because you will be called on both accounts.
Now I’m off to email CBS again.
Evidence and informed opinion contrary to what they wanted to believe was ignored…. Worse than that, they relied exclusively on photocopies: no originals anywhere, at any time, ever.
At this level, that’s much worse than dumb. You don’t just get to shrug and walk away.
This elegant article by Hanson sounds about right: http://tinyurl.com/58sob
…’A bankrupt generation is fading away.’
Yeah, and they won’t be missed.
I start the day with a couple of standard news sources. From then on though it’s blogs all the way. The interactivity is better, the analysis is often more detailed. I must say that I hardly ever rely on the BBC for online news. Maybe five years ago it was the #1 news source.