The Circular Dan Rather
So, did you watch Dan Rather tonight? I did — and I never watch him. I wonder if his ratings are inversely proportional to his credibility. I wouldn’t be surprised. There’s something strangely fascinating about watching his implosion. It’s the same reason traffic slows near a terrible accident on the road.
One of Rather’s major defenses tonight was that the documents must be authentic, because they line up with what we know about Bush’s National Guard record. [N.B. I am not kidding. I swear it.]
This had me laughing out loud — with bitter disdain, of course.
The documents must be from the early 1970s, because their content is consistent with what we now know about Bush’s National Guard record. Of course, this is meaningless if you consider the possibility that they were forged recently — since any recent forger could easily fill the memos with content corresponding to what we already know about Bush’s National Guard record.
So: this evidence that the memos are authentic depends upon the assumption that . . . the memos are authentic. Otherwise, it’s pretty damn worthless, isn’t it??
If the circularity of this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Part of how we “know” the memos are authentic is because they were “validated” by Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges. Of course, that “validation” consisted essentially of CBS News telling Maj. Gen. Hodges: “the memos are authentic” and Maj. Gen. Hodges responding: “Uh . . . okay. If you say so.”
See, Dan? It’s called circular reasoning. And it’s the whole basis of your defense, dude.
It’s interesting now. But once they scoop the bodies off the road, the scene of the accident becomes nothing more than a bad memory that you’d rather forget.
I have a feeling that’s the way people will remember Dan Rather when this is all over.
UPDATE: Alert reader Hank K. notes the flaw in my analogy between the ghoulish fascination of watching Dan Rather digging himself deeper into a credibility hole, and the strange appeal (for many) of seeing a tragic auto accident.
The difference is that you feel sorry for the victims of the auto accident.
UPDATE x2: RatherBiased has a transcript of the defense. The relevant language that I found so amusing is this:
CBS news relied on an analysis of the contents of the documents themselves to determine the contents['] authenticity. It is in line with [what] is known about the service and dates.
Gee, Dan. It is also in line with what is known by the forger about the service and dates. Do you get my point yet?
“…the documents must be authentic, because they line up with what we know about Bush’s National Guard record”
I guess gullibility does not preclude that they were created to enhance what some people WISHED TO BELIEVE they KNEW.
For a group that regales us emphatically and at length (not to mention at high volume) the left is sure clueless.
Hey, Dan, pull my finger!!
Comment by Tom — 9/14/2004 @ 1:03 am
Follow up:
Should read: For a group that regales us emphatically and at length (not to mention at high volume)of how intelligent and superior they are, the left is sure clueless.
But hey!! W is dumb and followed blindly by right-wing idiots…right Thereeeeeza?
Comment by Tom — 9/14/2004 @ 1:07 am
Besieged Gunga Dan serves up spitballs on Monday night’s CBS Evening News; WaPo and NYT slam them back at high velocity!
Via Ratherbiased, with the help of a sharp-eyed reader’s email pointers, here’s transcript of Dan Rather’s latest defense on the Rathergate docs on Monday night’s “CBS Evening News” broadcast. And you can watch a streaming video of the broadcast here, …
Trackback by BeldarBlog — 9/14/2004 @ 3:49 am
I can’t believe that Time Mag and CBS stated the Bill Glennon was a Technology expert…I heard he is a Typewriter repairman?
I thought now that is their “Technology Expert” a Typewriter Repairman???
Man…that is a hoot. I can’t believe Time would not realize who Bill Glennon is.
Comment by Maria — 9/14/2004 @ 4:05 am
Watching Dan Rather implode is not the interesting part. Watching the subsequent shock wave consume John Kerry and the Dems–now that makes for interesting viewing.
I enjoy your blog, by the way.
Comment by James C. Hess — 9/14/2004 @ 5:09 am
Memogate Roundup
Lots of new good reading today regarding those CBS forged memos. Here is a Dallas Morning News editorial. Also, RatherBiased.com takes apart Dan Rather’s second attempt to defend his forged-memo smearjob. Via RatherBiased.com, you also find links to va…
Trackback by HobbsOnline — 9/14/2004 @ 7:25 am
Flannel-Clad Reporting
Shape of Days constructs his own forgery in 10 minutes and it is better than the CBS memos. He also deals with the 1 (one) vs. l (elle) issue rather succinctly. QandO takes a brief look at the list…
Trackback by King of Fools — 9/14/2004 @ 7:29 am
Memogate Roundup
Lots of new good reading today regarding those CBS forged memos. Here is a Dallas Morning News editorial. Also, RatherBiased.com takes apart Dan Rather’s second attempt to defend his forged-memo smearjob. Via RatherBiased.com, you also find links to va…
Trackback by HobbsOnline — 9/14/2004 @ 7:32 am
Dan is learning that The Blogosphere Never Blinks.
Comment by MWB — 9/14/2004 @ 2:43 pm
James C. Hess:
Thanks for the kind words.
Comment by Patterico — 9/14/2004 @ 5:34 pm
Next 60 Minutes story: the Hitler Diaries must be real bcause they contained references to real WWII events.
Comment by John Anderson — 9/15/2004 @ 2:11 am
[...] Some may read the above mea culpa and feel that Access Copyright is acting in good faith and that their fair use omissions were an honest mistake. That is your prerogative. I don’t share that belief however. I think that they have simply been shamed too much to admit otherwise. Dan Rather was eventually shamed into admitting that the authenticity of Bush’s National Guard documents could not be verified. Would you then conclude that he was acting in good faith all along? [...]
Pingback by The Southern California Law Blog » Tyranny of Copyright - Part XIX (Lies, And The Lying Liars Who Lie) — 8/24/2006 @ 10:34 pm