I'd Rather Not
I don't pretend to know whether or not the documents alleging President Bush's failure to meet his requirements in the National Guard, presented this week by 60 Minutes, are real or fake. And I don't really pretend to care.
But I will say that I don't care at all for Dan Rather's demeanor in defending the story, practically daring detractors to prove them wrong, as if the burden of proof was on the people rather than the media.
It's not that hard to prove whether or not documents are, or even could be, genuine - and if you can't do that, maybe you don't have enough credible information to report the story to a trusting public.
Did Rather justify every Bushie's paranoid fantasy of "Liberal Media"?
Nobody wants Bush out of office more than I do. But if you're going to throw accusations of this nature at a sitting President of the United States, particularly in an election year, the burden of proof is squarely on YOU.
Is this how lazy our news gathering has become? Are all of the outlets just so eager to "outfox" Fox News these days (let's remember that Fox was initially responsible for prematurely declaring Bush as President on Election Night in 2000, causing all of the other outlets to follow suit long before the final numbers had actually come in?
Screw you, Dan. It's your job to prove it to us.
============================
As always, your comments are welcome.
============================
But I will say that I don't care at all for Dan Rather's demeanor in defending the story, practically daring detractors to prove them wrong, as if the burden of proof was on the people rather than the media.
It's not that hard to prove whether or not documents are, or even could be, genuine - and if you can't do that, maybe you don't have enough credible information to report the story to a trusting public.
Did Rather justify every Bushie's paranoid fantasy of "Liberal Media"?
Nobody wants Bush out of office more than I do. But if you're going to throw accusations of this nature at a sitting President of the United States, particularly in an election year, the burden of proof is squarely on YOU.
Is this how lazy our news gathering has become? Are all of the outlets just so eager to "outfox" Fox News these days (let's remember that Fox was initially responsible for prematurely declaring Bush as President on Election Night in 2000, causing all of the other outlets to follow suit long before the final numbers had actually come in?
Screw you, Dan. It's your job to prove it to us.
============================
As always, your comments are welcome.
============================






