Read the news with skepticism

[theeye]

A lot of the news that has been reported authoritatively in the press has turned out to be myth and rumor.

[poseidon]

Why does that seem shocking? Many of us have known for years that reporters no longer investigate facts -- they rely on newswire and even rumor too heavily to report the news.

A perfect example? I'm still waiting for some proof that Bush did cocaine. All we have is one reporter's article that someone told him Bush did cocaine. No one has ever corroborated that piece. Yet, ask people here alone who thinks he used to do cocaine, and the numbers run pretty high.

[theeye]

It's not at all shocking. Early on the morning of the 11th, I was cautioning my staff to take all news with a large grain of salt. I posted this story because many of the items they mention are ones that have been related to me by several people who were convinced that they were true. I've expressed skepticism, or at least doubt, numerous times over the last two weeks. I just thought it was interesting to see a compilation of some of the specific rumors that turned out to be false and thought it might be helpful to get the word out about those stories.

[poseidon]

Do you remember the OKC bombing, when the national news reported that Stinger missiles were used to blow up the building? Do you remember when it was reported on the national news that it was definitely Arabs that did the bombing?

I heard on a talk show on September 12th where the guest was an ex-FBI investigator. He stated that whether or not Osama bin Laden was behind all of this or not, the news would report for several days that he was simply because they he is the only terrorist at large whose photo is in every newsroom's archive. I thought that was very interesting to say the least.

[erik_kosberg]

I'm still waiting for some proof that Bush did cocaine.

And I’m still waiting for him to deny it. There are times when silence speaks volumes.

[theeye]

Originally posted by poseidon

whether or not Osama bin Laden was behind all of this or not, the news would report for several days that he was simply because they he is the only terrorist at large whose photo is in every newsroom's archive.

Which is why I agree with the calls for the U.S. government to release the evidence it has, to the extent possible without compromising national security. I don't have any doubt that bin Laden has been behind a great deal of terrorism and I would be surprised if he did not have at least some hand in this particular incident, but it is important that the U.S. both be sure and make it clear to the world that we've found the right perpetrators.

That said, even if bin Laden was not behind the WTC attack (which I regard as a possibility though highly unlikely), the evidence that he is culpable in terrorist acts in general is compelling enough that I have no problem whatsoever with the U.S. taking any action necessary to bring him to justice.

But this is not The Soapbox, so I'll not proceed here in that direction. I specifically posted this article here more as a matter of informing people who may still believe some of those rumors than to provoke any debate.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
And I’m still waiting for him to deny it. There are times when silence speaks volumes.

I think you should take the news with a grain of salt. And a person's word is worth more than a newscast.

I don't put much stock in unsubstantiated news reports regarding Bush and cocaine in and of themselves. But given any person of wealth who went to school around the time that he did and had a problem abusing drugs, I would guess that at least some cocaine use would be unsurprising in the same way inaccurate news reporting in is not shocking - because it is so common.

However, I would have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt if he came out and said he didn't use. I give more weight to his word than to unsubstantiated news reports. The fact that he witholds giving that word, and the fact that many people regard him as honorable in using his word is telling.

I have to admit, he's wise not to lie about it by denying, nor to own up to it. Lying is a mistake and admitting cocaine use would really only give his opponents political fodder.

-JP

[poseidon]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
And I’m still waiting for him to deny it. There are times when silence speaks volumes.

And don't you believe that, with all the "investigative reporters" at the NY Times, NY Post, NY Daily News, Washington Times, Washington Post, and all the Texas newspapers, along with the area papers of his colleges, both undergraduate and graduate, that they could find some proof if it existed? All he said was that he refused to even acknowledge the allegation.

But this is not The Soapbox, so I'll not proceed here in that direction.

Theeye, I did not bring up my examples for debate. All I did was bring up my examples for further evidence in the past that the media hasn't done its job in a very long time.

Jeff

[theeye]

Originally posted by poseidon



Theeye, I did not bring up my examples for debate. All I did was bring up my examples for further evidence in the past that the media hasn't done its job in a very long time.

I'm not accusing you of trying to start a debate -- I'm just being cautious not to instigate one myself. This thread has taken a turn that I didn't intend (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and I just wanted to clarify, as I failed to do in my initial post, what my original intent in posting was. I'll let the moderators decide whether this thread as it develops needs to be moved to The Soapbox.

[erik_kosberg]

All he said was that he refused to even acknowledge the allegation.

The point is that he could simply have denied using coke but instead chose to avoid the question. That avoidance says quite a bit about him. Mighty convenient to simply not answer the question. You or I can avoid such questions without raising too many eyebrows but when a candidate for the presidency does so, a lot of people will draw their own conclusions. Maybe that’s not fair but it’s reality.

But we’ve been down this road many times before. Neither of us will ever convince the other so we might as well just agree to disagree.

[theeye]

I've been informed that this forum is, indeed, considered an acceptable place for debate. So my scruples were unfounded.

I'm not too interested in the turn this thread as taken, but please don't take my non-participation as censure -- I apologize for implying that it might be inappropriate here. Debate away.

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
And I’m still waiting for him to deny it. There are times when silence speaks volumes.

Before I agree to disagree I have to add this

Erik is right, the silence of the reporters who have NEVER ONCE bothered to ask Gore and Clinton the exact same question, when there are people (notice the plural) willing to go on record stating they both used cocaine, has been remarkable.

Amidst Jeff's pounding the bully-pulpit of the Conservative Agenda (the GOP paid off all witnesses to Bush's cocaine binges, silly) he had a point...

The American press is sorely lacking in true journalists and reporters. Instead of reporting and investigating the stories, they instead just read the wires for what the primary press release-readers at the AP and Reuters produce. Rip-and-read is a way for cheap profit-hungry TV stations and cable outlets to cut down on that investigating balderdash.

Serve the public trust and inform the public? My ass! Katherine Graham is spinning in her grave.

It's so much easier to toss a chopper up in the air or send a live truck out and pretend to be on the scene of an event or to convince the public that a car chase is actually news. (But theft and copprution at city hall, which might result in costly lawsuits, isn't). Hence, news directors across the country screaming bloody murder since their choppers got grounded by the FAA.

It's also easier to hire 20-something kids out of J-school to rip and scripts for the anchors who never go out in the community themselves. Anchors NEVER cover stories by themselves for the most part, and reporters are too busy repackaging the same story for 4, 5, 6, and 10 to get any real leads and meat of the situation to report. But amazingly, in all the bumps and teases and invitations to watch further, it is made to look like these talking heads are actually doing work and digging out the true story.

They're really playing Solitaire. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. I'VE WORKED IN TWO OF THESE DUMPS.

It's why I left the sleazy part of the business and gunning for a real job at a real news organization nearer to the source... "local" news is all about LYING TO THE PUBLIC FOR PROFIT.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by file13
Amidst Jeff's pounding the bully-pulpit of the Conservative Agenda (the GOP paid off all witnesses to Bush's cocaine binges, silly) he had a point...

Jeff did appear to be denigrating the:

[...] "investigative reporters" at the NY Times, NY Post, NY Daily News, Washington Times, Washington Post, and all the Texas newspapers [...]

The point being: obviously if even they couldn't come up with evidence that Bush did cocaine, we are sorely lacking in investigative reporting. At least, that's how I read it. But then that presupposes there is evidence to find, since the term "investigative reporters" is only ironic (and needing of quotes) if we are winking - knowing that they are lousy for not being able to find the simplest of things.

It is possible that he's saying Bush didn't do drugs and we do have wonderful investigative reporters who tried hard but were unable to find evidence. Their amazing skill at plying their trade exonerates Bush when evidence fails to be found.

Hmmm. Neither of these interpretations squares with previous posts. Quite confusing!

I myself will have to agree with the investigative-reporters-as-buffoons theory.

-JP

[poseidon]

JP,

I would agree with you in theory, except that out of all of those newspapers, along with any other newspaper in this country, there have to be some investigative reporters who could dig something up on Bush if it truly existed. His alcoholism wasn't that hard to find, so why so much trouble with his alleged cocaine use?

And yes, I'm going to agree with everything CeeJay stated above.

Jeff

[erik_kosberg]

The Washington Post recently had an article about an interview with Phil Zimmerman, author of the PGP crypto software stating that he was overwhelmed with feelings of guilt. Zimmerman has since said that he implied no such thing. Any guesses about whether or not the Post will print a retraction?