I'm going to do my best here to give you an answer that does not reduce us to yelling bullshit at eachother. The thing is you'll need to believe me when I tell you that I am not trying to bullshit you. Also let me put a couple things on the table first:

1. I don't care about this Bush and the National Guard story personally. We already know all about it and that he went into the Guard to avoid Viet Nam. If that speaks to some voters on a personal level and they believe it shows some lack of character on Mr. Bush's part, that's fine. Has he lied to the American people about it? That seems to be the big question and we know the answer is yes but has anyone ever bothered to ask him directly and got a direct answer out of him on this: Mr. Bush did you choose to enter the National Guard to avoid having to serve your country in Viet Nam? I think that question should be on the table and Bush should answer it. We know the answer but the press will hound him till he answers the question. If Bush wanted to end this nonsense he would come out and say something about it. He'd be doing us all a favor if he did because I can't stand being stuck in nonsense issues while we ignore what's important.

2. We have to have a clear idea about what is news and what is not. The SBVs have no evidence and nothing on the table except what they say which seems to shift more than the sands of time. They are also run by a group of folks with lousy reputations for being either attack dogs for the right or attack dogs who have been specifically hired to go after Kerry in the past. Hence what they have is not news it's rumor and innuendo. They do not deserve a spot on a tv news show to level charges against Kerry because the actual documents and our government and our military back Kerry. In the case of what Mr. Rather has reported, he's got actual documents to back the story and Mr. Barnes has stated that he got Bush into the Guard as a favor. These two items conflict with what the President of the United States has told the country and the world. That's news. Now Barnes should have to have his story checked out and confirmed and the documents should be as well, but here's the thing, there's a big difference between the two stories. I'm not real high on the Barnes story either but he's made himself look like quite a jackass in telling it and why would he want to do that? I mean after his comments that he thought government was all about doing favors for rich people...umm...do I want this guy anywhere near political office...no I don't. As a matter of fact I don't like him at all.  It nice that he's repenting now but man...how stupid was this guy back then? This is a big issue with our government, I think...there's a lot of people in it that aren't too bright. The bottom line here is though, do you see the difference between the two stories because if you can't then what I'll say in my response won't really make a difference to our discussion.

You don't get it do you, Reg.  Or maybe you're just in denial and I can understand how years of thinking you've been given the straight skinny only to find out that you haven't been can do that.  We're not talking about Dan Rather simply because it's good to slam Rather.  We're talking about him because this latest incident goes to the core of what it is people have been saying about him all these years.  Andy Rooney said it best when he stated that Rather is 'transparently liberal'.

No, actually I do get it and what you are doing here is talking about Rather and not the story. You've done exactly what I said in the previous post. You are looking for "motives" for doing the story and at the reporter and ignoring what's been put on the table. I mean I'd like to ignore the whole thing as well but it's next to impossible because the media goons have blown it up so damn large. That is in part because there is a crew of people out there that attack Rather right away for reporting it (talk shows etc.). Instead of debating what the documents say or what Ben Barnes said, you're talking about who Dan Rather is and who Ben Barnes is and assigning them a "motive" which amounts to your own personal speculation. So you are ignoring the story itself...calling it garbage...because you've already made up your mind that Rather and Barnes are liberals...which in your mind also makes them part of the Kerry campaign (Barnes really is I believe)...which also makes them liars. So you choose to ignore the story, even if it's true...which I don't think we know yet for sure. In truth I'm ignoring it myself but you brought it up. So who cares how Rather votes...what's important is, is there any truth to the story. He's a professional, is he doing a good job or not? Is what he's reporting solid and factual or is it hogwash? That's what we should be concerned with, not if Rather is a liberal or not. Rather is not the story, the documents are the story. Did the president lie? That's the story. Is it a great important story...I don't know...right now I don't think so...but is it true?

When Rather's program, 60 Minutes, paraded one author after another, week after week slamming President Bush you had to get the idea that something was up.  Where were the opposing authors to make the case for the president's side?  There weren't any.  When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were telling their story did you see Rather and his 60 Minutes program helping them or even asking them some serious questions?  No, you didn't. 

Ok, this goes to my point about what's news and what's not. The people you are talking about that 60 Minutes had on (O'Neill, Clarke) actually worked inside the Bush administration. The fact that they had left their posts and were now talking about what went on inside those walls was huge news. Those guys were not just authors, not just a couple guys that wrote books, they were part of and working with the administration. Putting on an author that likes Bush is not balance. Just because some author writes a nice book about Bush does not make him news worthy. The did have Rice on and that was news worthy and she was allowed to give the administrations side. I'd call that fair. 60 Minutes would have put on anyone from the Bush administration that wanted to talk...that's news. Random authors that write books praising the administration are not news. On the SBVs from what I understand they have been avoiding doing any real media and they continue to look worse and worse. I don't believe they wanted to go on 60 Minutes. Also, as I stated earlier they have no evidence...just what they claim and nothing to back it up. That is not news it's rumor and rumor that conflicts with the actual documentation and other testimony. So, that makes it nonsense...not news.  

Now, here comes some guy out of Texas with ties to Dan Rather's daughter, who by the way is a player in democratic circles in the same town this guy comes from and Rather not only has him on his 60 Minutes program but he insists on doing the story himself.

I wouldn't argue that Barnes stinks but can he back up what he's saying. The record shows he is who he says he is and was where he says he was but can he back it up is the question. Rather doing the story himself speaks to the "Hey look at me!" aspect of the media that I mentioned in that previous post. The reason Rather wanted it is because he felt it would be a big story so he wants the attention...so what...the other reason he probably wanted it real bad was because the story looked real solid...maybe he'd win a prize or some such nonsense...the thing is who cares about that crap? We want to know is it true...right? That's what we count on these guys for isn't it?

Would you say this bastion of old media is middle of the road?  How about the New York Times which you mentioned.  Do you think CBS news and the NYT have any influence over the general public who doesn't, as you say, have time to research the stories in depth via the internet because they've got a family and a job and other commitments?  If you don't think they have any influence you're kidding yourself. 

I've always found it an interesting point that folks always point to the New York Times. Yes, they are the paper of record so to speak but can we look at how many people across this country actually read the Times? The number of folks overall that read any newspaper is dwarfed by the number that watch tv or listen to the radio. How often do you read the times Kevin? How many of your coworkers show up to work with the Times under their arm each day? How many of your neighbors have it delivered to their homes daily? My guess is probably zero to very few on all of these. No, I don't think the Times has much influence over the general public. I think it has influence and respect in the media industry but not with the average Joe. I think the New York Times is not well read nationwide because most people if they read a paper at all read their local paper...and most don't even do that. So I've always found it kind of a joke that people claim that the New York Times is warping minds nationwide with their liberal ranting. I think most people who claim that don't even read the paper and have no idea what's in the Times. Who buys that idea...maybe folks who listen to talk shows on the radio or tv...because those clowns always claim the "Times says this" or the "Times says that" and that "they are all liberals over at the Times" but the people listening never bother reading the paper to see for themselves.  As for CBS, I'd guess they have more influence over the average Joe than the Times does but if they were so influential how come so many people don't listen to a word they say? CBS News reports all kinds of stuff but you only remember the stories that the talk show noisemakers label "liberal lies" because those are the stories they don't want you to believe. It hurts their side. I honestly think the average Joe pays more attention to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, or Mike Moore or even Al Franken maybe than they do to the New York Times or CBS News...they are more entertaining quite obviously. They all mix opinion with the news though so what they do is not reporting it's editorializing. Huge difference but many people think they are getting the "news" from these guys.

EEE comes in here with another 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' post and you run to his support and take the opportunity to kindly show us how once again it's all a right wing conspiracy.  The only conspiracy has been years of a liberal media which has pulled the wool over your eyes and still has you blinded.  There's still hope for you but first you must disabuse yourself of the idea that there is a right wing conspiracy taking place and understand that the only thing which has changed is that the right wing is being heard and it's in sharp contrast to what you're used to hearing.

This part of your reply is odd. I never mentioned a conspiracy and Eric's post had nothing to do with doom and the sky is falling nonsense. Eric's post was about how people are amazingly misinformed in this country and I took it as he was sort of asking us to ask ourselves why this is. It happens to be a really good question that we could write about for months. You are the one talking about a "left wing liberal media conspiracy" and all I'm saying is there isn't one. Are there liberals in the media...sure...are there right wing nutjobs in the media...sure...so what! The challenge here to you and me is not to be able to identify who's who...it's to be able to figure out what is what. Can we tell the difference between a rumor and a fact? Can we read a story and understand what it's really saying? Do these people in the media, and a guy like Dan Rather should be held to a different standard than a guy like Bill O'Reilly because they don't do the same job, educate us and report what we need to hear or do they report crap that is sensationalistic bunk that's only meant to make us watch them, listen to them, or read them? So if you want to slam Rather for doing a lousy job fire away but if you just want to say his story is lies because you know he's a liberal count me out. See a reporter can't be self serving and be a good reporter. That's the key reason guys like Moore, O'Reilly, Franken, Rush, Hannity, Coulter,etc...can't be considered reporters...part of what they do is also to be a shameless self promoter...they need ratings, to sell tickets, or to sell a book. I don't blame any of them for it and it's an individual thing whether or not you are entertained by any of them...but the big thing is they are not reporting the news to us...they are giving us their version...their editorial. It's also not really worth us arguing about what they say. Dan Rather however is supposed to be reporting the news to us...he's supposed to be doing investigative journalism. Judge him harshly in that area if you want but if you want to argue about his political leanings you are clearly off the reservation.

Let me ask you this about your "liberal media conspiracy"...if we've had years of that and it's getting to all of us how come we've elected so many Republican presidents? Why do they keep electing Republican governors here in "liberal" Massachusetts if we're all "brainwashed" by the "liberal media"?

How come I have never voted for a Democrat for president if I'm brainwashed? When I cast my vote for Kerry that will be the first time I've ever done that. Why did I vote for Bill Weld, a Republican, for governor of Massachusetts? I'm supposed to be brainwashed...have the wool over my eyes...yet why does my voting history not reflect this? Did I malfunction? Why wasn't I a Clinton supporter? Why didn't I vote for Gore? Why didn't I vote for Dukakis? What the hell is wrong with me?

Why does it seem as if you are the one that is...well I wouldn't say brainwashed...but ahh...biased beyond belief? You also keep accusing me of things that are off the wall, as if you can read my mind. If one of us needs to take a step back here and try and clear their mind so they can take a more honest look at things it certainly doesn't seem to be me. How many Democrats have you voted for? How many times have you judged the candidates on their own merits and not on just towing the party line? How heavy does abortion play into how you cast your vote? Does it so overshadow everything else for you that you could never bring yourself to pull the handle for a Democrat...because that's an issue for you if it's true. It means you can't make an honest assessment of the candidates because your personal beliefs won't allow it. Nothing wrong with that really but is that pretty close to where you stand?