The Guardian, biased but, so far as I can tell after one skim-through, accurate:
For supporters of John Kerry, who have seen allegations about the Democratic candidate’s military record sap his campaign, it must have seemed like a case of just deserts.
The president, George Bush, was last week looking vulnerable on the same grounds after CBS’s flagship current affairs show, 60 Minutes, broadcast a report claiming he had been suspended from pilot duties for failing to meet the required standards. It was also claimed that a commanding officer had been put under pressure to ‘sugar coat’ Mr Bush’s performance reviews.
But while CBS stands by its story, allegations have now surfaced that 60 Minutes based a large part of the report on forged documents.
Now as in last Friday. Surfaced as in we have now heard about it other than just via the blogosphere, who have been all over this for some time. But, better late than never. Much better.
Later on in the same report:
60 Minutes does not have a reputation for irresponsible journalism – it was the show that first broadcast the now notorious photographs of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq – and it takes the reliability of its stories seriously.
The CBS news president, Andrew Heyward, told the Baltimore Sun he had confidence in the story and it was appropriately vetted, but conceded it was a “political hot potato”.
Indeed. CBS throws more chips on the table with every passing hour.
My one objection to this Guardian report (apart from the fact that I knew it all already) is that it refers to things like “a report on the Free Republic weblog“, while linking only to the Free Republic weblog in general, rather than actually linking to the particular post it refers to. But such links – there are others to the top of other weblogs (Little Green Footballs, Power Line) – are, again, far better than no links at all.
If you do want links, you can of course track all of this on Instapundit. Scroll down and, you know, find the postings for yourself. Unless you think that everything of importance has all been said here. Oh all right then, here is a good Insta-posting to start, with lots of links, to other actual postings.
Changing the subject completely, I have just been reading a very fine description in this book (Maritime Supremacy and the Opening of the West Mind by Peter Padfield) about the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Light, better armed, much more agile little English ships sporting cruelly with the stately galleons of Philip II of Spain, occasionally capturing one, and changing the course of history. An excerpt (about the country that gained most from the Armada’s defeat, Holland) from the book can be found here. Sorry. Flying off at a total red herring tangent. Must stop doing that.
Brian —
What tangent?
By the way, the English fleet also had better cannon, with longer range and better trained gunners.
concedes it is a political hot potato
Anybody who has baked potatoes knows that you can’t half-ass it. Before you cook it, you have to poke it with a fork a vew times. Failure to do it right, results in a violently exploding potato.
Excellent analogy at the end, Brian. ^_^
Heh, like the blogosphere, with their army of networked experts, as compared to the typical journalist/reporter?
TWG
PS. SDB, good to see you’re still around!
“60 Minutes does not have a reputation for irresponsible journalism.”
Well now, I wouldn’t say that.
Depends on who you ask
Nice to see a discussion about the Armada here. Total revisionism, I know, and hardly the stuff of the English National Myth, but I have heard lots of “experts” recently opine that the English Fleet made very little difference to the progress of the Armada.
What did for the Armada was the failure to link up with Parma’s troops in Flanders (due to English jamming of Spanish radio traffic, no doubt) and the subsequent fireship attack – which whilst doing little direct damage, caused such panic that the Spanish cut their cables and fled for the open sea.
When the wind then turned unfavourable, with their anchors on the bed of Calais harbour, the Spanish had no option but to claw their way northward or go aground.
The gale persisted, and although the English were just about out of gunpowder, they shadowed the Spanish north until past the point of no return.
And most of them never returned to Spain, for sure. The casualties to Spain caused by the (undoubtedly superior) English gunnery were modest, and not a primary tactical factor in the result.
What do you think of that…?