September 12, 2004

BEAST OF BURDEN OF PROOF

Re the Dan Rather bogusness, Jim Treacher writes: "Okay, I'm no Howard Kurtz or anything, but I've seen one or two episodes of Law & Order in my day, and ... isn't the burden of proof on the accuser? It is? Okay. And isn't this crewcutted septuagenarian fadebrain the one who made the really big serious accusation? He is? Check. So ... isn't he sort of, you know, under the obligation to verify his claims? And not in a position to sit back and demand that everybody else prove to his satisfaction that it's not clearly bullshit? Is it out of line for me to ask this stuff? Sorry. Sorry. But I mean, if these memos were scribbled in burnt sienna crayon on the back of a Denny's placemat and somebody had the unmitigated gall to say something about it, would that be part of the 'professional rumor mill'? I'm just asking here, no big deal."

More Treacher observations here, here, and here.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 12, 2004 04:06 AM
Comments

Heh. Can I sleep with Treacher too?

Posted by: Rebecca at September 12, 2004 at 04:29 AM

I wonder if one of the CBS experts is the same one they used in 1992 to discredit Jennifer Flowers?

Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at September 12, 2004 at 04:41 AM

Well I for one hope we do see some damning memos written on burnt sienna crayon on the back of a Denny's placemat. I've learned a lot about 1970-era typewriters today, and I'd like to learn similar amounts about burnt sienna crayons and Denny's placemats.

Posted by: Scott Campbell aka Blithering Bunny at September 12, 2004 at 04:48 AM

The burden of proof rightly rests with Dan. Only problem is he has a history of lying about all-things-military..

my favorite lie is the whopper he told about his own military exploits

we forgot about this one no?

Posted by: Arvin at September 12, 2004 at 04:51 AM

"Heh. Can I sleep with Treacher too?"

pls send picture

Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 12, 2004 at 05:02 AM

Thanks for the link, Arvin. I followed it all the way to Eric Newton, who had this to say about the sum total of Rather's Marine career:

``He had enlisted on January 22, 1954 and was cut loose four months later on May 11th for being unfit.''

I wonder how long recruit training lasted in 1954? (Today it's 13 weeks). Either way, this sounds like a guy who couldn't pass the Intitial Strength Test, was kept around awhile in the hope that he'd be able to shape up, and finally let go when he proved to be a no-hoper.

Nothing to be ashamed of, really - Marine training is tough, and every recruit platoon loses people in the early weeks who just can't cut it. But I suppose it takes special hubris to somehow point to that as evidence of a military career.

Posted by: Annalucia, mother of two U.S. Marines at September 12, 2004 at 05:13 AM

But I suppose it takes special hubris to somehow point to that as evidence of a military career.

Annalucia.. Thank you.. well said. And thank you for raising two great kids..

I think it's also important to note - the insinuation that Bush avoided Vietnam is coming from a man who avoided the Korean War in nearly precicely the same fashion..

special kind of hubris indeed

Arvin

Posted by: Arvin at September 12, 2004 at 05:32 AM

Richard, people like you and Treacher don't understand that CBS doesn't have to reveal sources or prove its case. Because there's something terribly wrong with the blogosphere.

Why would people like you, Blair or Treacher want to be part of the cyber pajama party set of partisan political operatives and professional rumor mill, when you could aspire to be a naked has-been professional liar and political hack narcissist on a corrupt and failed TV network, instead?

Case closed.

Posted by: charlotte at September 12, 2004 at 06:55 AM

Thanks for the links to info. about Rather. It doesn't excuse his behavior and attitude, but flunking out as he did may explain them.

The rare times I tune to broadcast news, I *never* turn to CBS. This latest episode with the memos is just one in a long string of problems they have with the truth.

I love this quote from Best of Web:

"The enduring mystery remains. Whom does CBS hire as its "news producers"?"

The answer is probably anyone who can't get a job anywhere else. I'm sure any producers at 'CBS News With Dan Rather' have to leave whatever brains they have in a jar at the door and yield to Rather's whims. Anyone with brains AND a spine probably spends as little time as possible working there.

Burden of Proof:

To me, it seems it lies with CBS. They made the charges, they need to prove what they used as evidence is valid. So far, they have not done that.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at September 12, 2004 at 07:01 AM

Seems fitting that a broadcaster is so adept at projection.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 12, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Would that be "adept at projection" of fantasy-lies, his own insecurities, or of significant losses in Viacom stock?

Posted by: Krugman's fact-checker at September 12, 2004 at 08:53 AM

Richard: Done. I also noticed the vote is currently a suprisingly tight 63-37% in favor of disclosure. Hopefully more TB readors will follow to tip the balance.

Posted by: Sean at September 12, 2004 at 10:22 AM

"Heh. Can I sleep with Treacher too?"

pls send picture

Damn the Internet! Always with the facts! Romance is dead.

Posted by: Rebecca at September 12, 2004 at 11:49 AM

And yet, Oliver "Uncle Fester" Willis, Soros' morbidly obese girlfriendless whore, doesn't care that they're fakes.

Posted by: Morris at September 12, 2004 at 12:17 PM

You know, i emailed oliver willis and asked him for a comment on his views on the matter for an article im writing for my paper.

he didnt reply despite being the type who'd attend the opening of an envelope.

now i know.

this thing is turning into stalingrad for cbs.

I dont know much about putting out fires, but i have to imagine that the most productive tact is to shit on the blogosphere, especially when your realing from too much attention.

I mean it worked for Jerry-re Swiftboats and that comics writer with the active magination, didnt it?

Posted by: rod at September 12, 2004 at 12:40 PM

Projecting his guilt and shame over being a washout onto the evil Bush.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 12, 2004 at 03:17 PM

Yes, it is Rather's obligation to make the case. All his defenses so far have used the same techniques as 3rd rate trolls. Shifting the burden of proof. Guilt by association. Twisting words and clever editing. Ad hominem attacks. Etc.


P.S. If I buy pajamas and restart my blog can I become a member of the vaunted pajamarati too?

Posted by: Robin Goodfellow at September 12, 2004 at 05:02 PM

Sounds about right. They're both Houston boys from different backgrounds. Maybe Rather is still comparing?

Posted by: Jung at heart at September 12, 2004 at 05:03 PM

I seem to be doing a lot of P.S.'s today for some reason. Meh, anyhow:

P.P.S. When your opponent has stooped to arguing about your clothing, I think you've effectively won the argument.

Posted by: Robin Goodfellow at September 12, 2004 at 05:18 PM

P.P.P.S. Bah! Damn blogging addiction. I can quit anytime! Really! I can!

Posted by: Robin Goodfellow at September 12, 2004 at 07:49 PM