5 ms·
That trusted source didn't bother to vet the faked documents and instead rushed it onto the air. That trusted source continued to push that narrative even going
by Clubber 7y ago
That trusted source didn't bother to vet the faked documents and instead rushed it onto the air. That trusted source continued to push that narrative even going so far as to say, "fake but accurate," destroying all credibility and ultimately retiring.
The only difference is today, they don't retire out of shame, they just keep on doing it, keeping viewership via emotional draw rather than rational news. Real news has been dead since that incident in my view. It's mostly state propaganda, regardless of party.
- ceejayoz 7y agoYou're mixing up Rather with the trusted source. Rather received documents from what was apparently a long-term, trusted source. CBS certainly screwed the pooch in that incident, but a long-term relationship with a well-placed source is inherently a form of vetting.
- Clubber 7y agoSorry, I was meaning Dan Rather being the trusted source of news for the populace. He was the successor to Walter Cronkite after all.