Reminder to headline writers and reporters on the Dan Rather-CBS lawsuit story: He didn’t file a “$70-million lawsuit” last week. As a wise westerner points out to The Audit, it is marginally relevant that he’s seeking $70 million in damages, but in fact that suit has no value yet. That will be up to a jury, if it gets that far.
The number is more or less random. Rather is seeking at least $20 million in compensatory damages and gets there through verbally agreements allegedly made during contract extension talks. He made $6 million a year, according to the suit (linked to in this Los Angeles Times account), and his last contract expired in 2006.
This isn’t to say the suit has no merit. Who knows? But the fact that Rather is suing his ex-employer is the news. Assigning a value to a civil suit is tricky and not worth it. News organization making this mistake miss an opportunity to help readers understand the civil justice system.
I mean, he could just as well be seeking a date with Ms. Universe in a diving bell. A ‘67 Camaro with a griddle in the back.
I’m just saying that what the man is seeking is as relevant as sunglasses on a three-legged mule, barbecue sauce in a box of Cracker Jacks, etc.
It’s not the biggest deal in the world, but it makes The Audit hotter than a firecracker thrown at one of those dragon costumes at a Chinese New Year parade. In July. In an equatorial country. On an unseasonably hot day. Just knock it off.
I have a feeling that Rather's lawsuit would be more aptly described as a "two bit lawsuit".
He had a stellar career and an established reputation, and in a few years he'll die in ridicule because he pissed it all away. He used his power to further an agenda instead of reporting the news...
A whole cadre of "professional journalists" let his hatchet job go unchecked.
Thank goodness for amateurs in the blogosphere who took him down.
Posted by padikiller
on Tue 25 Sep 2007 at 09:05 PM
You must be referring to the TANG memo that "matches" one written in word if you shrink it down to ridiculously small sizes, but looks nothing like it when viewed at it's original size.
The one that all the facts point to it likely being legitimate, right?
Posted by AhmNee
on Wed 26 Sep 2007 at 01:05 PM
AhmNee Wrote
The one that all the facts point to it likely being legitimate, right?
padikiller responds
Yeah...
Just like all the facts prove that Ron and Nicole's true killer wasn't O.J.
Reality can be painful for some...
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 27 Sep 2007 at 07:47 AM
"Reality can be painful for some..."
You're doing great, Padikins. Admitting it is the first step to healing. Once you've accepted the reality, you'll feel better, I promise.
Posted by AhmNee
on Thu 27 Sep 2007 at 11:24 PM
Rathergate Q&A
Q. If a credible news source recived a politcally-charged fax from a political opponent of a candidate, would it demand to see the original before airing it?
A. No, if it's CBS News.
Q. Even if had the original documents, wouldn't a credible news orgainization require a verified chain of custody before it published these documents?
A. No, not if it's CBS News.
Q. Once NONE of four experts (Emily Will, James Pierce, Linda James and Marcel Matley) hired to evaluate these documents could verify their autheticity, wouldn't a credible news operation refuse to publish them?
A. No, if it's CBS News.
Q. If your source is Bill Burkett, a man who has openly hated President Bush for years and who has a history of nervous breaskdowns, wouldn't a credible news operation deny him anonymity?
A. No, not if it's CBS News.
Q. If you're Mary Mapes, the producer who published the memos, and a reporter asks you if journalists have the responsiblity to verify information before publishing them, what do you say?
A. "I don't think that's the standard"
Q. If one of the memos in question claims that an officer (Lt. Col. Staudt) made a comment about Bush, wouldn't a credible news operation track the man down and verify the claim?
A. No, not if it's CBS News.
Q. You're the producer of the 60 Minutes spot based on these memos. Just before it runs, what do you do?
A. Call John Kerry's campaign manager.
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 at 07:26 AM
Well, we're not just crying that they look the same when shrunk and compared. You're growing, Padi. I'm so proud.
Funny that you'd use this level of scrutiny when it suits you yet still manage to claim Kerry's purple heart wound required a band-aid even when the Doctor who made that claim has been proven to have not signed the medical records and was not the doctor on call the night the wound was attended to.
Still, your argument calls into question the handling of the documents. Not their veracity. Like it or not, the evidence (the style of typewriter the document was created with, era of typewriter and whether the TANG office would have had one at that time) point to the authenticity of the documents. The rest of your argument is just politics.
No different than any other situation, sometimes you have to just make a judgment call and let history decide if you were right or wrong. I think Rather did that and the evidence has and will vindicate the man.
Too bad the same can't be said for Dubya.
Posted by AhmNee
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 at 11:59 AM
Things moonbats would Rather not see...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 at 07:32 PM
Try doing that with them at their original size, Padikins. You can take just about any two similar fonts make them look practically identical if you shrink it down enough. If you look at the imperfections of the original there's no possible way to draw the conclusion it was created on any printer in production.
That comparison is so laughable it's bordering on ridiculous. Go ahead ... blow it up to the size of the original PDF that was posted to the web. Not that shrunk down version. I challenge you.
Posted by AhmNee
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 at 11:44 PM
Dan Rather got taken down by a jazz guitarist/web designer who used the DEFAULT settings of MS Word (default font type, default font size, default margins, default line spacing, default tabs) and recreated the fraudulent TANG memo in its ORIGINAL SIZE before overlaying it with the PDF release by CBS.
I did the same thing in ten minutes by downloading and printing the PDF file from CBS and typing it in Word. The result is perfect match, as anyone with a couple of firing neurons can plainly see.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only
The memo is an amateurish fake and clearly false from the very first sentence. (Gen. Buck Staudt retired from TANG a YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEMO).
Of course, it will never be possible to squeeze this little slice of reality between every daft moonbat's ears, but smart people won't have any trouble dealing with it.
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 29 Sep 2007 at 08:39 AM
You are out of your mind. Even at that size there are character flaws and inconsistent printing that NO PRINTER COULD MAKE. There is no way that could have been made on anything but a typewriter. The reason they match the default settings of word is because WORD WAS MADE TO EMULATE THE TRADITION SETTINGS OF A TYPEWRITER.
I originally thought that your little graphic there was compelling. But if you scrutinize it in the slightest bit it's plain as the hand on your arm that they aren't the same thing. Anyone who knows anything about typewriters or printers could tell you so.
Your jazz guitarist/web designer tried to pull a fast one by shrinking the two sets of text till they were nearly identical. Unfortunately, he failed. They still don't look alike. The differences in the formation of letters within the same document and the tilt of certain characters (notably the lowercase E's) in relation to the others plainly shows this is not the product of any computer. COMPUTERS DON'T FUNTION LIKE THAT.
Posted by AhmNee
on Sat 29 Sep 2007 at 02:04 PM
Dropping the Reality Bomb on McLearyland
"The CBS independent panel report did not specifically take up the question of whether the documents were forgeries, but retained a document expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded the documents used by CBS were most likely produced using modern technology.
Tytell concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate
This would be the SAME Mr. Tyrell who REFUSED to authenticate the documents when 60 Minutes asked him to before they aired the story anyway (without a SINGLE verification from a SINGLE expert)...
And the SAME Mr. Tyrell who told Josh Howard at CBS that he thought the documents were fakes on Sept. 10, 2004 (just two days after the story aired, and when Dan Rather was still every night lying about the puroported verification of the memos)...
Funny how Dan Rather never mentioned that THEIR OWN HIRED EXPERT TOLD THEM THAT THE MEMOS WERE FAKES, huh?!..
Like I said... You can lead a moonbat to truth, but you can't make him swallow it...
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 29 Sep 2007 at 02:58 PM