September 18, 2004

Hanging out with the "wrong" crowd

My regular blog reading rounds have suffered mightily while I've been in the throes of addiction to the Rathergate scandal. Instead of reading LeeAnn and Ted, I've been compulsively refreshing the Puppyblender, Powerline and lgf. I did make flying stops at Frank's, Harvey's and Pixy Misa's, but everyone else has been neglected.

I've also talked about the scandal with family and co-workers, and to a person, none of them had heard a word about it until I brought it up. I don't know if that means that roaming the blogosphere makes me more informed than the rest of them, or if they just have a "real" life and I don't, but one of them characterized it as the media all jumping on the bandwagon about the same non-story. In this case, I disagree. I think the major issue here is journalistic ethics, and the obvious lack of them at CBS, and that is a big story.

Think about it. If Dan Rather used forged documents and obviously biased testimony to advance his own personal political agenda in a 60 Minutes story, then how can we believe anything that CBS has "staked its reputation on"? Think about all the exposes they have done over the years. Many of them were obviously slanted, but we believed we were given the essential facts, whether the story was on Medicare fraud or consumer rip-offs. And if CBS is faking evidence, or rather using "evidence" that is so easily proved fake, why not ABC or NBC? I know we on the right of the political spectrum have always viewd most major media as biased--but now we know that at least one of the "big three" actually lies to us, and is arrogantly unrepentant about it to boot! That's what makes this a big story, and that's why I am addicted.


Posted by Susie at September 18, 2004 10:24 AM
Comments

Susie, you've successfully defended your obsession with this story. And I feel the same way. Nobody is talking about this "around the water cooler" where I work, and I'm not sure whether they're just not paying attention or don't want to face the implications.

Posted by: songstress7 at September 18, 2004 01:16 PM

i was actually pleasantly surprised. yesterday, i talked to my massage therapist, and it's been a while since i've seen her, and i said we have so much to talk about! she said, "yes, i know! i have been hearing so much about blogs lately with this CBS story!"

made me proud. of her for paying attention and of me for being a blogger.

:)

Posted by: sarahk at September 18, 2004 01:31 PM

Funny how things change. A few months ago, Rush Limbaugh was downright contemptuous of bloggers. Now he's mentioning them in tones of grudging admiration.

Wouldn't be surprised if he starts a blog himself, sometime after the election.

And you really nailed it on the "why this story matters" part :-)

Posted by: Harvey at September 18, 2004 05:38 PM

There's worse things. (Than Blathergate addiction).

Posted by: robin at September 18, 2004 06:32 PM

Mega-dittos, Susie. I'm just now makin' the rounds to my usual reads after spending most of the past week looking for more stories on Rathergate. And, yep, you nailed it on why this is important. Rather and Co. want to shift focus from the documents themselves to what they say. Well, duh... If the evidence is not there then there's no story!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 19, 2004 01:56 PM