The Golden Gate

So, Dan Rather is talking about Rathergate and partisanship and the media. San Francisco Chronicle TV critic Tim Goodman liveblogged Rather’s latest, um, account at the annual Television Critics Press tour which is going on right now in Los Angeles. An excerpt of Rather’s remarks ran today on the first page of the Chronicle’s Entertainment Section.

(Side note: Goodman has dubbed the annual TV Press Tour “The Death March With Cocktails,” and his accounts are consistently enjoyable, if one cares about insider reports from the TV industry and rich-and-famous foolery and that sort of thing. You can follow The Death March With Cocktails here.)

And, for easy reference and background, here is an index of the entire pre-election Rathergate memo scandal.)
Below is the full transcript of Rather’s remarks. Rather had just been asked if he felt that he carried any “baggage” from his career in network journalism.

“Yes, I have baggage. I have the baggage of being a graduate of the journalism school out of the University of South Vietnam. I have baggage from the Civil Rights movement in Birmingham. I have baggage from Watergate and covering, as the White House and lead correspondent for CBS News, on the only President in history who resigned. I have baggage from Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded it. I have baggage from two interviews with Saddam Hussein. You bet your life I’ve got a lot of baggage. And make no mistake, I’m proud of it. Yes, I’m biased. I have a very strong bias toward independent journalism, italicized, underlined, put in bold caps. Some - I’m not here to argue all - some of the problems I have and have had with this question of, quote, bias, is misunderstanding what my bias is. I’m committed to independent journalism and, yes, fiercely independent when necessary. And a lot of the times it’s necessary. Not all, but some of what you describe as, quote, baggage, comes from people who have the following view, which they’re entitled to have. This, God bless it, is America, and you can have it. But their view is, to not just Dan Rather, but to a lot of people in journalism, “Listen, Mr. or Ms., you report the news the way I want it reported, or I’m going to make you pay a price. I’m going to hang a sign around your neck that says you were a bomb-throwing Bolshevik or something. And I’m going to mount a sizable and very effective smear campaign on you.”

Now, this doesn’t only happen to me. If you’ve seen “Good Night, and Good Luck,” you know what I’m talking about. And I should - I should be lucky enough to live to the day that I can walk in the same room with Ed Murrow, but I can’t, and nobody before or since him could. But there’s the model for things. If you’re determined to be independent, you’re going to take the heat. If you are determined to be fiercely independent when necessary and say, “No, sir” - or ma’am - “I’m not going to report the news the way you want it reported. I’m not going to be bullied or intimidated. I’m not going back up, back down, or back away to meet your partisan, political, or ideologic agenda. I’m going to play to my bias for independent news” - now, when you face the furnace, you have to take the heat, and some of the time, you’re going to get burned. And I’ve got plenty of scars. I’ve made my mistakes, and some of my wounds are self-inflicted.

But the one thing, if you check the record - and I invite you to check the record - you will not find me cowing to pressure. Now, sometimes that can lead to making mistakes. Sometimes - and I’ve had people tell me, “Dan, this is not healthy for your career.” Well, my answer to that is to hell with the career. I didn’t get into journalism as a careerist. I’m not going to go out of journalism as a careerist. So yes, I’m biased about doing independent journalism. And you bet I’m prejudiced. I’m prejudiced toward reporters - and America is filled with reporters - who want to do the right thing. Increasingly it’s difficult to do the right thing because of what I described before. You stand up and ask the tough question. You ask the toughest question you know how of the highest power you can find, and I guarantee you the second your backside hits the seat, there are going to be people coming after you. But you know, that goes with the territory. I wouldn’t have it any other way. That news, real news, news at its best, is a wake-up call, not a lullaby. And I’m not in the lullaby business.”

Well, Al Gore’s PowerPoint Slideshow/Movie is opening today, and it got a glowing review in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The following is more “food for thought” on the subjects addressed by Gore’s film:

Instapundit — “SO I GUESS KYOTO WORKED, THEN: “Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase.” (from the Telegraph, UK)

“UPDATE: Canada is abandoning Kyoto. Just when it was starting to work!”

On the “Inconvenient” Movie itself:

From _Slate_:

“…This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases “is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical.” Wouldn’t deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century’s headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore’s airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn’t seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity’s proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!”

“The Moral Flaws of Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_”

Brief “Inconvenient” responses (video):

(60 second spot questioning the science behind Gore’s film):

“Glaciers”

“Captain Planet”

“If you don’t fly commercial, don’t talk to me about greenhouse gases or conservation.” (Instapundit, again)
A comprehensive and humorous look at “Inconvenient” that (among other things) questions the moral congruence of Gore promoting “Inconvenient” by flying all over the country in his private Gulfstream jet (which on a single one-way LA-DC trip burns as much fuel as a Hummer does in a year). Also looks at some of the recent Hollywood Celeb “Environmental Ads” featuring Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow and others…

Video Here.

More writings:

A second look at Climate Change data in the WSJ.

Finally, here is Michael Crichton who posits that Environmentalism is our modern, western fundamentalist religion.

Update and error correction: the original post [just moments ago] stated NYT. The organization with hoaxy sourcing revealed by Rusty and others was the Sunday Times.

–

A response to a lunatic commenter in this post over at the Jawa Report. A good post worth reading for the clarity around what we are dealing with in terms of the character of the enemy AND fact-checking the Sunday Times.

Anyway, on to the time I wasted spraying moonbat repellent:

Not even sure that reasoning is possible with this john fellow, BUT there was too much insanity in this comment for me not to do a hack summary refutation of all things moonbat mentioned:

The colonial occupation forces are responsible of
of the beheading of (IRAQ) and not this journalist!!

You’re not from around here, are you? Heh.

Colonialization requires full or partial political control. We have limited to moderate influence, but no control. Not since the dissolution of the CPA. It also requires settlers and an exploitation of the economy or resources. Our military personnel hardly qualify as settlers. And if we were really in it for the oil, we would have seized the fields and ensured cheap and exclusive export to the US. Hell, all we needed to do was lift the sanctions on Saddam if it was really just for the oil and therefor cheap energy/gas. War and its uncertainties _negatively impacts_ export systems, price stability, production, and a times, gross supply as a result of two of those and other factors. No one with any common sense thinks it is about the oil. Makes a great bumper sticker, though. And the analysis is about as deep as the thickness of one of those stickers.

The fanatics who do the beheading are responsible for their heinous actions. you know–cuz THEY do it, Not the US. They achieved barbarism all on their own. The war is simply intensifying their actions and increasing exposure. All one needs to do is spend some time researching the “justice” systems and culture in Iran and Saudi Arabia to see that Islam and its Sharia=barbarism, except by medieval standards. COme to think of it, Islam is stuck 700 years ago, so the barbarism actually fits. It also needs to be stopped.

The US is not a terrorist organization. Terrorism specifically means _targeting civilians_ for the purpose of creating fear in the populace, instability, and influencing policy, etc. That is simply not something we do. We are more careful with civilians than any military in the history of mankind. By far.

…they invade that country to ensure democracy!!!!who believes them??

Most who are clear about the perhaps hopelessly idealistic, but nevertheless strategic vision of democratizing the Middle East. That’s who. Although I must say, we should have enforced secular constitutions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Separation of Koran and State, a free press, civilian control of the military, free markets, equal rights and universal suffrage, property rights, the rule of law and an independent judiciary…and the protection of the [negative not positive] rights of the individual above any group or organization…these are what is important. Democracy for democracy’s sake can get ugly with a tribal, islamofascist mentality. But yes, I believe them. Not the only reason we went to be sure, but certainly a major strategic element.

where is the mass weapons you came for???

Most who are informed think Bekka Valley and other points in Syria. Possibly Iran, but primarily Syria and the Bekka.

Abu Ghraib is a black spot in the forhead of the violent aggressive terrorists who invaded that country and destroyed it completely.

Abu Ghraib is certainly a black spot. And, in a military of hundreds of thousands of personnel strong, mistakes are made. To point to this and not to balance it with the attrocities of Saddam and other militaries [heck how about the UN Peacekeeping troops globally accused of child molestation?! only demonstrate a lack of clarity and balance [at best].

The larger point is war is always messy and mistakes will be made. What is important within that is to acknowledge our mistakes in a useful and forward fashion: learn and integrate the learning and change policy/standards where necessary.

that is the type of democarcy they want to establish! you can not fool people, these are more intelligent than the chief commander i.e. (Adolph) Bush!!

Ah yes. Bush is Hitler. All this assertion points out is the historical illiteracy of the writer. Bush is no Hitler. Hell, he is not even a Lincoln. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, jailed newspaper editors and judges, etc. In terms of despotism/fascism Bush is a 2 on a Hitler scale of 10. And given we are AT WAR he should probably be a 3.

a simple question: what is the difference betwen
the Nazi actions and what we see now in Iraq?

Ummmm…it is less popular to kill Jews? Well, not really. Less organized/effective at same? Short answer: A Lot. Do a little research and get a grip.

they invaded that country for stealing the oil
and getting revenge for Sept. 11, and for the sake of Israel…

Not even gonna to waste more time on this tired tripe.

They will lose, in deed they lost the war: morally
(Abu Ghraib and Pucca), and militarilly (great
losses of the occupation forces every day…
the will of people can not be defeated!!??

Good. Cuz the “will of the people” is what Iraqi’s now get to exercise rather than the will of a person in Saddam. And they get to experience and evolve that process thanks to US intervention. There are many great reasons to have gone in that are still valid. But let’s just take one that is often not mentioned. Saddam violated DOZENS of U.N. Resolutions. The US military is [like it or not] the de facto enforcement body for the UN. No one else has the logistical capabilities, the precision, the skill, the will, and the volume of ordinance to do it. Even our allies have trouble communicating with us in the battle-space due to technology gaps we are closing with our anglo-shphere [you know, the credible countries] allies. The bottom line is that “mandatory” resolutions only mean something if they are back with swift and resounding force [or at least the credible threat of it]. Dude was makin’ a mockery of the UN Sec Council [and WMD's AND ties to training, supporting, funding [Palestinian suicide bomber families] terror. Plus, if we can get the Iraqis to be self-sustaining, Iraq makes a great staging ground for point East [Iran] and Northwest [Syria. Best point of entry in the longer war.

It would be great if our "allies" were wiling to do the peacekeeping/post major ops role to leave us free to do the heavy lifting elsewhere, but now I am really dreaming big.

/moonbat repellant

I am beginning to think that BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome] is not a new ailment. Rather a renaming of one that existed already, and under recent events [including being out of the majority] just exposed the lunacy of many in the fevered left.

No really. In New Zealand.

On the face of it you have to say that Labour did in fact buy the election. The results as anyone who followed it can tell you were knife edge. Indeed we had to wait for the special votes to be counted before we knew who had won.

That winning margin? Just 2%

So when we find that Labour has overspent their campaign budget by 17% you don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to do the maths.

Labour has now taken the position that the laws regulating spending are “outdated”. Which is a bloody arogant way of saying they don’t suit Labour so they’ll ignore them.

Which isn’t all they ignored. National protested at the exclusion of Labours “Pledge Cards” from the budget and the Electorial Office advised PRIOR to the election that they were indeed part of the expenditure. Labour simply ignored this and kept on spending.

Spending our money. Thats right, more taxpayer dollars added to the complusary Union Fees and the free pool a workers for the “Labour Letter Factory” as they called where state servants were used to stuff envolopes. Added to this having been caught out with hospitals handing out political material in waiting rooms and having been instructed to remove it by the SSC it is very clear that there are NO rules that Labour will recognise when it comes to grasping onto power.

This is just one of the reasons that I felt that all of the American Left’s cries of stolen elections was more about projection than anything else. When you are willing to do anything just for the sake of winning, you think everyone has the same inclination.