PDA

View Full Version : CBS 60 Minutes "Memogate"



SecaucusFats
01-10-2005, 09:19 AM
Four CBS Employees Ousted for 'Memogate'
FOX News ^ | January 10, 2005


NEW YORK
Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been let go for their role in preparing and reporting the controversial "60 Minutes" story about President Bush's National Guard service before last year's elections, according to CBS.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; "60 Minutes Wednesday" Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard's deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, according to CBS. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes (search), was terminated, the network said.

Longtime CBS News anchor Dan Rather (search), who was the correspondent on the "60 Minutes Wednesday" story, already announced his departure as anchor of "CBS Evening News" late last year. His final show will be in March.

The CBS staffer oustings came with the release of the final report by an independent investigation panel assigned to look into what happened with the CBS Bush National Guard story (search) which alleged that the president had shirked some of his guard duties and received special treatment during his service.

The CBS report turned out to be based largely on forged memos.

In its report, the panel concluded that the network news organization failed to follow basic journalistic principles in preparing, reporting and following the story.

CBS News also made matters worse by its "rigid and blind" defense of the "60 Minutes Wednesday" report, the panel reported.

CBS thought it had an important scoop with the National Guard story this past September, reporting that Bush had received preferential treatment to get into the guard and stay in the United States during the Vietnam War, and had failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

But critics immediately questioned the story, saying a document purportedly written by Bush's late squadron leader appeared to be a fake.

Rather and CBS initially defended the piece. Rather later apologized on Sept. 20 before CBS appointed the investigative panel.

"We made a mistake in judgment," Rather said, "and for that I am sorry."

The panel found that the news organization should have set the record straight earlier.

"The panel finds that once serious questions were raised, the defense of the segment became more rigid and emphatic, and that virtually no attempt was made to determine whether the questions raised had merit," the report concluded.

CBS News President Andrew Heyward (search) on Sept. 10 ordered West, one of the ousted executives, to investigate and review the opinions of document experts who had seen the disputed memos and unnamed sources that formed the basis for the Bush National Guard story.

That investigation never happened, the panel's report said.

"Had this directive been followed promptly, the panel does not believe that '60 Minutes Wednesday' would have publicly defended the segment for another 10 days," the report said.

According to CBS, the panel made a number of recommendations for changes, including:

Appoint a senior standards and practices executive, reporting directly to the president of CBS News, who would review all investigative reporting, use of confidential sources and authentication of documents.

Foster an atmosphere in which competitive pressure is not allowed to prompt airing of reports before all investigation and vetting is done.

Allow senior management to know the names of confidential sources as well as all relevant background about the person needed to make news judgments.

To read the CBS Report (pdf) click
here (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/cbs_report.pdf)

SF

Ross
01-10-2005, 04:59 PM
Kudos to CBS for allowing a real investigation instead of taking the more common sugar-coated token "investigation". Heads rolled as four higher level employees including a Senior Vice President were fired. It looks like the report called it like it is:

"In its report, the panel concluded that the network news organization failed to follow basic journalistic principles in preparing, reporting and following the story.

CBS News also made matters worse by its "rigid and blind" defense of the "60 Minutes Wednesday" report, the panel reported.

...
The panel found that the news organization should have set the record straight earlier.

"The panel finds that once serious questions were raised, the defense of the segment became more rigid and emphatic, and that virtually no attempt was made to determine whether the questions raised had merit," the report concluded.


I'm sure the conservatives on the board will join me in congratulating CBS for owning up to it's mistake! Won't you....

Cueless Joey
01-10-2005, 07:42 PM
How stupid was Dan Rather in not making absolutely sure the memo was authentic?
Then he did not even want to apologize later on.
His smuggy face will not be missed.

Qtec
01-10-2005, 09:20 PM
It was a set-up and Dan went for it.

The Neo-Cons will stop at nothing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

They say they want to unite the country but thy do exactly the opposite. this is how they think:

[ QUOTE ]
Attacks on dissent continue (9/15)
By Brendan Nyhan

In his speech to the Republican convention, Senator Zell Miller suggested that the president of the United States is not a legitimate target of political criticism, an anti-democratic tactic that echoes a long line of attacks on dissent since Sept. 11. Rather than backing away from his words, Miller has made an even stronger claim this week. Sadly, these are far from the only examples of this approach, which is also echoed in a recent Heritage Foundation fundraising letter written by Steve Forbes.

Miller famously told Republican delegates on Sept. 1 that "Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief."

This statement came under widespread criticism. But rather than backing away from the irresponsible suggestion that it is unpatriotic or even treasonous to criticize the president during wartime, Miller expanded the point in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Monday:

As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. Everything, that is, except the national Democrats' shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander in chief. John Kerry has been wrong many times, but he's never been more wrong than in his failure to support our troops and our commander in chief in this war on terror.
Here, Miller again equates criticism of the president with an attack on his role as the civilian leader of the military, even suggesting that Kerry himself must go along with Bush. Moreover, the Georgia senator extends that principle even further, suggesting that Democrats had a "shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander in chief" even before 9/11, and that they should not have attacked Bush during any portion of his presidency.

Miller's language echoes that used by Steve Forbes, the former Republican presidential candidate, in a fundraising letter (404K PDF) distributed this summer by the Heritage Foundation. In it, Forbes suggests that liberals are a "threat to America" and that their ideological attacks on President Bush weaken the country:

Have you ever seen liberals and the Left so hostile? And do you think they're a threat to America, or are they just making outrageous talk?
I think they're dangerous. In all my years I have never seen such venom in American politics. Even mainstream liberals are saying things and promoting policies that could rip our country apart and weaken our national security.
He later adds:

Since September 11, the divisions in our society have deepened with every passing day. At a time when the majority of Americans want to rally round the flag, defend our land and defeat our enemies, liberals seem to be promoting their delusions about America and President Bush that could weaken us and strengthen our enemies.
In a democracy, no political leader is above criticism. These sorts of attacks on open debate are reprehensible.

(Addendum: The Heritage letter also falsely claims that MoveOn.org put a "test campaign ad on its Web site comparing Bush to Hitler." The ad was actually submitted by a member and posted as part of a MoveOn.org contest to select a member-created ad to air on television; it was not a "test campaign ad" created by the group, as Forbes suggests.)

<hr /></blockquote>

Hostile!???
Amazing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Q

Ross
01-11-2005, 03:22 AM
True, Q-tec, it was a set-up. but not by the neo-cons. It was an anti-Bush guy from Texas who manufactured the fake memos and then went to a nearby Kinko's to send them in.

As much fun as it would be to blame the conservatives for this one, I think that the producers at CBS brought this on themselves. Making the mistake was bad enough, but worse was denying it for several days when the evidence was getting pretty clear that the memos were fake. After all, when it is pointed out to you as a newsman that that the fonts fit MS Word and not old typewriters it is time to fess up. Quickly, I would say.

eg8r
01-11-2005, 06:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It was a set-up and Dan went for it.

The Neo-Cons will stop at nothing.

They say they want to unite the country but thy do exactly the opposite. this is how they think: <hr /></blockquote> Once again, another post that makes no sense. Everything is Bush's fault. Don't make any mention of self-responsibility. Why should Dan Rather take responsibility for his poor decisions, when people like Q are quick to cast blame on others.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
01-11-2005, 06:45 AM
Friggin' idiots.

The sun is setting on the old media. They just have yet to realize it. After 40 years of sowing the seeds of distortion, they are now reaping the bitter harvest.

Dan Rather, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

eg8r
01-11-2005, 06:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the conservatives on the board will join me in congratulating CBS for owning up to it's mistake! Won't you....
<hr /></blockquote> While I join you in congratulating CBS, it is not because I am a Conservative or not a Conservative. It is about time some people (or company) in this country, who are in the limelight, stand up and take responsibility for their actions. You are right, most of the time there will be an "investigation" and we never hear the outcome.

eg8r

Ross
01-11-2005, 11:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Friggin' idiots.

The sun is setting on the old media. They just have yet to realize it. After 40 years of sowing the seeds of distortion, they are now reaping the bitter harvest.

Dan Rather, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. <hr /></blockquote>

Quite a generalization there Wally. A single report on a single newsmagazine out of hundreds of "old media" jounalistic investigations broadcast each year was found to have been based on bogus documents they received. And the people responsible were fired (OK, except Rather who is being allowed to retire). Hardly proof of massive distortion, IMO.

The conservative pundits who have ridden the "liberal distortion" bandwagon the most are provably among the most biased sources of information we have. Fox decided to capitalize on the marketing concept of having a "No Spin" network. That would have been great if they actually did it. But if you look at their flagship products such as the O'Reilly Factor you find it is nothing but spin. And of course the most heavily hit newsouce by conservatives is Drudge -- now that is a "fair and balanced" source of info isn't it! Not to mention Newsmax (motto -- "All the rumors and innuendo fit to print") and it's ilk.

To be fair the non-commentary part of Fox News is pretty reliable. It puts a little conservative twist on things (can't call people who strap a bomb to themselves "suicide bombers" can we?) but overall they stick to the real stories. As does ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. In fact if you go right now www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com) and compare the stories you see any of the "old media" news websites you will see almost the exact same set of stories told almost the exact same way. So if the "old media" is distortion ridden than so must be Fox News as well.

I think rumors of the death of the "old media" are greatly exaggerated. We will continue to go to them for hard news (except staunch conservatives who will go to Fox News to see the same reports). But what is true is that due to the internet there are more politically driven sources of info available now - on the left and the right. The good thing about this is that they will serve as watchdogs for each other. But I think it is important to remember that these "watchdogs" have their own political agendas as well and they should get off their "fair and balanced" highhorse they try to operate from.

eg8r
01-11-2005, 11:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
can't call people who strap a bomb to themselves "suicide bombers" can we? <hr /></blockquote> Nope, to be sympahtetic to the innocent killed, we should refer to the bombers, as homicide bombers. I personally think the lives of the innocent that are being killed are much more important than the waste of life that just strapped a bomb to his body and boarded a bus full of women and children. To me, calling them suicide bombers is having sympathy for them. They are killers/murderers and should be called that.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
01-11-2005, 11:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The sun is setting on the old media.<hr /></blockquote>

Quite a generalization there Wally. A single report on a single newsmagazine out of hundreds of "old media" jounalistic investigations broadcast each year was found to have been based on bogus documents they received. And the people responsible were fired (OK, except Rather who is being allowed to retire). Hardly proof of massive distortion, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>

Just my opinion but I think it is symptomatic of a larger problem.

Like I said before, I've been watching this crap for 30 years. I have formed an opinion from that.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> ...Fox decided to capitalize on the marketing concept of having a "No Spin" network. That would have been great if they actually did it. But if you look at their flagship products such as the O'Reilly Factor you find it is nothing but spin.....

<hr /></blockquote>

I agree. O'Reily is an ass clown.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>due to the internet there are more politically driven sources of info available now - on the left and the right. The good thing about this is that they will serve as watchdogs for each other. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree. There needs to be a balance. I also believe having the two political parties serves to keep things from going too far either way.

Plus there is the added bonus that when a liberal like Barbara Boxer or Barney Frank opens their yap, they remove all doubt, as the old saying goes /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
01-11-2005, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
can't call people who strap a bomb to themselves "suicide bombers" can we? <hr /></blockquote> Nope, to be sympahtetic to the innocent killed, we should refer to the bombers, as homicide bombers. <font color="blue"> Thats not being sympathetic, its being stupid! </font color> I personally think the lives of the innocent that are being killed are much more important than the waste of life that just strapped a bomb to his body and boarded a bus full of women and children. <font color="blue">Nobody disagrees with you on this. </font color> To me, calling them suicide bombers is having sympathy for them. <font color="blue"> It isnt. Its an accurate description. </font color> They are killers/murderers and should be called that.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I dont see what your problem is?
If you say 'suicide bomber', you know immediatelywhat it pertains to.
Its just language. There is no disrespect there.

Q

highsea
01-11-2005, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>I dont see what your problem is?
If you say 'suicide bomber', you know immediatelywhat it pertains to.
Its just language. There is no disrespect there.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Well, why not call them "heroic martyr bombers"?

We would all know what you were referring to.

Suicide is the intentional act of takiing one's own life. Homocide is the intentional act of taking another's. The bomber's primary aim is to murder others, not commit suicide, which he or she could easily do without hurting anyone else.

So homocide bomber is the more descriptive, thus more accurate term.
_____________________________

Qtec
01-11-2005, 12:49 PM
So the US personel [ according to your definition],who bombed Baghdad are all 'homicide bombers'?
Doesnt that sound a bit ridiculous?

Q

highsea
01-11-2005, 01:06 PM
Leave it to you to be unable to distinguish military targets from civilian ones.

Not at all surprising.

Qtec
01-11-2005, 01:13 PM
A guy throws a bomb into a bar and runs away. Is he a 'homicide bomber'?
Q

eg8r
01-11-2005, 03:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see what your problem is?
If you say 'suicide bomber', you know immediatelywhat it pertains to.
Its just language. There is no disrespect there. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think anyone has mention disrespect. Since you bring it up, I believe there is. Calling the guy a suicide bomber shows sympathy to the waste of life. He is a homicide bomber. By saying suicide it implies the idiot is the only one that was killed. By saying homicide, we really don't care what happened to the idiot the blew himself up, we are showing we care about the others that he killed. I am not sure you would understand anyway, your posts in the past seemed to be sympathetic to the Palenstinians in their fight against Israel.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2005, 03:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A guy throws a bomb into a bar and runs away. Is he a 'homicide bomber'? <hr /></blockquote>

What do you think?

eg8r

Ross
01-11-2005, 04:39 PM
I agree with Qtec on this one. The bomber part of the phrase "suicide bomber" does a fine job of conveying the violence-against-others aspect. The "suicide" part conveys a particular aspect of the bombing. The combination works well to paint a picture of what is being described: a man or woman with a bomb strapped to them blowing up themselves and their victims. To require that news reports use the term "homicidal bomber" -- which is simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly -- is a case of conservative "political correctness" gone awry, IMO.

SecaucusFats
01-12-2005, 12:18 AM
Here's a link to an article from MSNBC. (The author, Howard Fineman is a liberal.) It makes for interesting reading.

MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6813945/)


SF

highsea
01-12-2005, 02:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> To require that news reports use the term "homicidal bomber" -- which is simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly -- is a case of conservative "political correctness" gone awry, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>Well, we don't want to inconvenience you, Ross. So let's just assume the guy was trying to commit suicide, and a few civilians unfortunately were standing in the wrong place.

Like Ted Bundy was just masturbating, and those girls just happened to be tied up in front of him with knives stuck in them. I get it now....

eg8r
01-12-2005, 07:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
To require that news reports use the term "homicidal bomber" -- which is simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly -- is a case of conservative "political correctness" gone awry, IMO. <hr /></blockquote> IMO, your reasoning is a case of liberal judgement which basically does not care about the innocent. The word bomber by itself means nothing, when you add the descriptor you give meaning. You and Q believe the idiot blowing people up is more important to note than the innocent.

eg8r

Qtec
01-12-2005, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
To require that news reports use the term "homicidal bomber" -- which is simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly -- is a case of conservative "political correctness" gone awry, IMO. <hr /></blockquote> IMO, your reasoning is a case of liberal judgement which basically does not care about the innocent. <font color="blue">How do you come to that conclusion? </font color> The word bomber by itself means nothing, <font color="blue"> O yes it does! A bomber is someone who throws, plants, drops etc a bomb. The major factor being that other people get killed, not the bomber him/herself. </font color> when you add the descriptor you give meaning. <font color="blue"> Exactly! A 'Suicide' bomber is someone who has the bomb on their person and who knows that when they set the bomb off, they will die also. </font color> You and Q believe the idiot blowing people up is more important to note than the innocent. <font color="blue"> Again, how do you come to that conclusion? </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Should we now call lumberjacks ,tree killers?
Q

SnakebyteXX
01-12-2005, 11:18 AM
Can't help but feel that most of you are missing the point. What concerns me more here is how can we go about defending ourselves against people who are willing to die for a chance to kill us?

From the Kamikaze of WWII to the fanatics who flew the passenger planes (used like bombs?) into the World Trade Center to the nutjob strapped with high explosives who blows himself/herself up in the midst of a crowd or the maniac driving a vehicle packed with same -

How do we defend against these human trigger mechanisms who are willing to give their lives to make a point?

Is it possible?

Snake

Qtec
01-12-2005, 11:31 AM
No.
Q

eg8r
01-12-2005, 12:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You and Q believe the idiot blowing people up is more important to note than the innocent.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr> Again, how do you come to that conclusion? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> You are more interested in the label for the killer, than those that are killed. You have no intention of looking at this from another point of view, so I will refrain from continually trying to open the brick you call a brain.

[ QUOTE ]
Should we now call lumberjacks ,tree killers? <hr /></blockquote> Should we have to continue reading completely asinine questions from you which have nothing to do with the subject. Are you unable to tell the difference in conversation between an innocent human life and a tree? Your question follows the same line of nonsense as your previous question to highsea when comparing civilians and military.

eg8r

eg8r
01-12-2005, 12:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How do we defend against these human trigger mechanisms who are willing to give their lives to make a point?

Is it possible? <hr /></blockquote> I would say YES. The liberals will not like this because they have their heads so far up the PC-monster's butt they cannot see the light. One way to defend against these types of things is called stereotyping/profiling. Why are airport screeners pulling grey haired old ladies to side to check them for explosives?

Obviously stereotyping/profiling will not defend against an act already in progress, but it would go a long way in thwarting future efforts. Sure the profiles would change with the times and circumstances, but when 100% of our terrorist activities involving airliners and buildings involved those of middle eastern descent, would it not make sense to pull those aside and leave the little old ladies alone? At least until that profile changes (ie, little old ladies begin hijacking planes and flying them into buildings).

I would guess the next terrorist activity will not involve the hijacking of an airline (however the airport screeners leave little satisfaction in the minds of the travelers), but I think any activity should closely monitor those of middle eastern descent and/or ties to the Islam nation (broad and general, I know. I just cannot think of a more defined group right now).

eg8r

SecaucusFats
01-13-2005, 02:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> Can't help but feel that most of you are missing the point. What concerns me more here is how can we go about defending ourselves against people who are willing to die for a chance to kill us?

From the Kamikaze of WWII to the fanatics who flew the passenger planes (used like bombs?) into the World Trade Center to the nutjob strapped with high explosives who blows himself/herself up in the midst of a crowd or the maniac driving a vehicle packed with same -

How do we defend against these human trigger mechanisms who are willing to give their lives to make a point?

Is it possible?

Snake <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Yes it is possible, but it requires a two pronged approach, one being tactical, and the other being strategic. The tactical approach is what we are already doing. i.e. tightening up security, increasing intelligence gathering, etc.. But, from a strategic viewpoint, if we are serious about about substantially reducing / eliminating the threat then we need to address the underlying root issues of the conflict beginning with the Israeli / Palestinian issue. The US should demand that Israel return to the original 1967 borders, and that Jerusalem be declared an 'international zone' under international jurisdiction and open to all. We should push for democratic government in the region and for international aid in the creation of economic development in order to provide a brighter future for the increasingly alienated and disaffected youth that are the prime recruitment pool for the Islamist extremist fringe. </font color>

SF

DickLeonard
01-13-2005, 06:06 AM
Ross I guarantee that CBS was snookered by the Republican Party.

Only a dumb Democrat would try that move and according to the Red /Blue states chart, the Blue states IQ is 30 points higher than the Red.####

eg8r
01-13-2005, 06:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Only a dumb Democrat would try that move and according to the Red /Blue states chart, the Blue states IQ is 30 points higher than the Red.#### <hr /></blockquote> Too bad your precious 30 points does make you smart enough to figure out how to win an election. It is hilarious to see statments like yours, the dems are sooooo much smarter. I guess what you are saying is that they are book smart, but too dumb to win an election.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
01-13-2005, 07:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Ross I guarantee that CBS was snookered by the Republican Party.
<hr /></blockquote>

LOL

Well Karl Rove must be the smartest man alive. I'm glad he is advising our President /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

DickLeonard
01-13-2005, 11:58 AM
Some people say the Repubs stole Ohio. I don't know why Kerry didn't demand a recount. Yale Graduates must be stupid.####

eg8r
01-13-2005, 01:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Some people say the Repubs stole Ohio. I don't know why Kerry didn't demand a recount. Yale Graduates must be stupid.#### <hr /></blockquote> Some people say Bush won fair and square. Are Yale graduates stupid?

eg8r

highsea
01-13-2005, 01:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Only a dumb Democrat would try that move and according to the Red /Blue states chart, the Blue states IQ is 30 points higher than the Red.#### <hr /></blockquote>
Or fall for this phony camparison???

[ QUOTE ]
Origins: Some pranks are so good they keep working over and over again.

Back in November 2002, someone (using the name Robert Calvert) created and posted to a USENET newsgroup a phony chart which purportedly showed the average IQ per state in the U.S., along with the average income and a column indicating how that state voted in the 2000 presidential election. The gag was that all the states that voted for Vice-President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election were clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while all the states that voted for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush were clustered at the bottom.

The chart's creator claimed to have been inspired by the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations and to have drawn his IQ data from the Ravens APM, but save for the average income per state numbers, which were valid but outdated figures taken from the 1994 World Almanac the chart was completely bogus. (The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices is not really a general intelligence test, nor do its publishers offer state-by-state test results data.) Nonetheless, a number of news publications (including the staid Economist) were taken in by the hoax some mistakenly citing the information as having come from the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, or even IQ and the Wealth of States and published portions of the chart, and discussed it as if it were valid. (A similar hoax about presidential IQs produced similar media-fooling results back in 2001.)

Now, someone has dusted off the same chart and (omitting the economic data) applied it to the 2004 presidential election, keeping the primary gag intact: the "blue" (i.e., Democratic states) are all clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while the "red" (i.e., Republican) states are clustered at the bottom. Same hoax, different year. If 2008 produces another close presidential election as 2000 and 2004 did, expect to see this same joke again four years from now.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Ross
01-13-2005, 03:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> To require that news reports use the term "homicidal bomber" -- which is simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly -- is a case of conservative "political correctness" gone awry, IMO.<hr /></blockquote>Well, we don't want to inconvenience you, Ross.

<font color="blue">It has nothing to do with convenience and I'm not sure why you construed my point that way. </font color>

So let's just assume the guy was trying to commit suicide, and a few civilians unfortunately were standing in the wrong place.

<font color="blue">You know as well as I do that no one interprets the term that way so why would you stoop to straw man arguments?

And I don't buy the argument that people sympathize with "suicide bombers" because the word suicide is in there. As I said, suicide is a descriptive term - it means killing yourself. It doesn't mean "good guy" or "bad guy." If the term "suicide bomber" has any extra connotation it is one of extremism, not of innocence. </font color>

Like Ted Bundy was just masturbating, and those girls just happened to be tied up in front of him with knives stuck in them. I get it now....
<font color="blue">Highsea, I don't know, but I'm guessing you are still mad at me about my arguments against Rumsfeld. There is no other reason I can think of for an intelligent guy like you to stoop to ridiculous and irrelevant "analogies" spiced with a sarcasm. You are starting to sound like Eg8r! </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">
Seriously, it does surprise me that you don't see how this is an instance of being PC, except in the conservative direction. I thought you would be the first to object if someone were castigating you for using the "wrong" term where wrong meant that people with a certain political leaning didn't like it.
</font color>

Ross
01-13-2005, 03:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
To require that news reports use the term "homicidal bomber" -- which is simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly -- is a case of conservative "political correctness" gone awry, IMO. <hr /></blockquote> IMO, your reasoning is a case of liberal judgement which basically does not care about the innocent. The word bomber by itself means nothing, when you add the descriptor you give meaning. You and Q believe the idiot blowing people up is more important to note than the innocent.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, wrong. When we talk about car bombers, we don't call them "homicidal car bombers." Why not? Because we don't think the innocent victims are worth noting? No! Because it is redundant. The story talks about the victims, not the term that describes the person who did the act. That's why headline say "sniper kills five" or "car bomber kills five" or "suicide bomber kills five" without using the word homicidal.

When a headline about a husband killing his wife and kids and then himself reads "Four dead in suicide-murder" do you think the word suicide was added because no one cares about the victims? Are the conservative PC police going to make us take the word suicide out of the headline so that the reader doesn't have sympathy for the guy who did it?

Weren't the kamikazis called suicide bombers? Did that engender an upwelling of sympathy in the US for these guys? Maybe we should go back to our history books with a red pen and make that "homicide bombers"? What a crock.

Whatever. You go on thinking that conservative designed PC terms are different than liberal ones. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

highsea
01-13-2005, 04:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="blue">It has nothing to do with convenience and I'm not sure why you construed my point that way.</font color><hr /></blockquote> Because you described it as "simultaneously awkward, less descriptive, redundant, and just plain silly"
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="blue">Highsea, I don't know, but I'm guessing you are still mad at me about my arguments against Rumsfeld.</font color><hr /></blockquote>
Not at all. They are entirely unrelated, and I hold no personal animosity towards you or anyone else. Life is too short for that. I apologize for the sarcasm, we all tend to fall into that from time to time.

I am not confused when I hear the term, but I do feel that homocide bomber is more descriptive, not redundant, and more accurately portrays the subject. After all, the main point of homocide is to kill others, as I mentioned previously, whereas suicide is primarily an act of self-destruction. We all know what the bombers intent is.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="blue">Seriously, it does surprise me that you don't see how this is an instance of being PC, except in the conservative direction. I thought you would be the first to object if someone were castigating you for using the "wrong" term where wrong meant that people with a certain political leaning didn't like it.</font color><hr /></blockquote> If people with a certain political leaning object to the term "homocide bomber", it makes me wonder about their motives. As Ed pointed out, the real victim is not the bomber, and the act is one of murder, not suicide. Of course we all know what is being referred to when we hear "suicide bomber". The same person is referred to by al-Jazeera as a "martyr". Fox calls them "homocide bombers". So what? It's not about PC, but about "calling a spade a spade", so to speak.

I do believe that the terms used are a reflection of the sympathies of the writer. Especially in the written word, where less tangible aspects of communications like inflection, body language etc. are missing, semantics takes on a greater role in communicating one's thoughts.
____________________________________________

Ross
01-13-2005, 05:37 PM
Thanks for the civil and reasoned reply, Highsea. I appreciate it, and at least now I know where we disagree.

IMO "suicide bomber" DOES call a spade a spade more than the proposed substitute. "Suicide bomber" efficiently conveys an accurate and detailed picture of the bomber (bomb strapped to body). "Homicide bomber" on the other hand is more generic and less descriptive. After all, ALL bombers that kill people are homicide bombers, whether they planted the bomb a week before, dropped it from a plane, or loaded their car with explosives. I guess you could reserve the term to be only used for people who strap a bomb to themselves, but that seems a bit unneccessarily restrictive and makes no sense semantically.

Note, also, logically the term is meant to describe the bomber, not the act . The act in turn is usually captured in the verb -- for example, "Suicide bomber kills twelve in nightclub." Substituting "homicide bomber" into that headline exposes the redundancy in the term.

As an another example of how "homicide bomber" mixes up act and actor, think about the headline if a guy straps a bomb to himself but it goes off before he gets to his target. Is he a "homicide bomber" when only he dies? I guess you could justify it by talking about his intent, but when you do that you are getting a bit farther from an objective description of what was actually observable.

I also don't understand how it is non-partisan or objective to just pick this one type of killer to have homicide strapped to his/her label. Car bombers are killers but we don't call them "homicide car bombers." Nor do we call people who poison others "homicide poisoners" or people who strangle others "homicide stranglers."

But by far the most important point is I don't think the term "suicide bomber" reveals anything about the sympathies of the writer. I believe the term has been used for decades by citizens of Israel who are likely the least sympathetic to these killers of anyone. And personally I use the term and read the term in the news and but yet I have no sympathy for people who blow up innocent people and even kids.

I think this assumed "sympathy" conveyed by the term is as real as the assumed disrespect conveyed by calling someone deaf instead of hearing-impaired.

And to be truthful - if I read or listen to a person using the term suicide bombers I have no idea if he is liberal or conservative. But if I see the term homicide bomber I know the writer's sympathies immediately. So which term is analogous to "deaf" and which is analagous to the more PC "hearing impaired"?

Highsea, I'm pretty sure we will never agree on this, but then what else is new? If we all agreed we would have nothing better to do than read about "half ball hit angle ranges"! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SPetty
01-13-2005, 07:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> If we all agreed we would have nothing better to do than read about "half ball hit angle ranges"! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>Hey now, ain't nothing wrong with talking about pool on a pool forum... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
01-13-2005, 09:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, wrong. <hr /></blockquote> I am sorry, you are wrong. If you would like to look for every other example that is fine.

[ QUOTE ]
When a headline about a husband killing his wife and kids and then himself reads "Four dead in suicide-murder" do you think the word suicide was added because no one cares about the victims? <hr /></blockquote> Your example does not work. Actually the name of suicide murderer would work for a homicide bomber, but they choose not to use it. The part of suicide murder that shows they are sympathetic to the innocent is that they call the killer what he is, call a spade a spade. He is a murderer. If you wanted to use an example that might work, you would have called the guy a suicide shooter, or suicide marksman, or something that had to do with the gun (provided he killed with a gun), as is the case with the suicide "BOMBER". I could accept suicide murderer, but that is not being used, and frankly, I would expect you to argue that also.

[ QUOTE ]
Weren't the kamikazis called suicide bombers? <hr /></blockquote> Were they? Was that a military action? Can you tell the difference between that and a civilian killing other civilians? Were the kamikazi aiming their planes at school buses carrying women and children or were they going after military installations/aircraft/vehicles?

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. You go on thinking that conservative designed PC terms are different than liberal ones. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
<hr /></blockquote> Thanks.

eg8r

eg8r
01-13-2005, 09:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey now, ain't nothing wrong with talking about pool on a pool forum... <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, but this is a non-pool related forum. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
01-13-2005, 09:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Were they? Was that a military action? Can you tell the difference between that and a civilian killing other civilians? Were the kamikazi aiming their planes at school buses carrying women and children or were they going after military installations/aircraft/vehicles? <hr /></blockquote>

Suicide bomber refers to the act not the target.

Q

eg8r
01-14-2005, 05:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> Suicide bomber refers to the act not the target. <hr /></blockquote> Ross would disagree with you. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote ross:</font><hr> Note, also, logically the term is meant to describe the bomber, not the act . <hr /></blockquote> By stating "homicide" bomber you clearly state the person's intent to kill other people. By stating "suicide" bomber it sounds like you are referring to a guy trying to kill himself. No one really cares about the guy killing himself so "homicide" is a better word to use.

eg8r

DickLeonard
01-14-2005, 12:00 PM
Who was that George and Dick Cheney.####

eg8r
01-14-2005, 11:20 PM
Your answer was part right, you are correct that it was not a sore loser from the self-declared-"intelligent"-party.

eg8r