Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license ove..

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cilkl0$rdq$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
> row?

CBS can't "loose" (sic) its broadcast license because it doesn't have one.
The individual stations owned by Viacom do have licenses, but the network
really answers to noone. It only provides programming to its affiliate
stations...therefore, nothing to "loose" (sic).

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Sep 2004, http://HireMe.geek.nz/ wrote:
> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
> row?

In a word: no.

Nor will Dan Rather be fired. Some underling will take the blame and get
fired instead.

It will otherwise blow over. Being liberal means never having to say that
you're sorry (or admit being wrong).

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cilkl0$rdq$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
> row?


On what basis would thier license be revoked? If getting the facts wrong in
a news story where an offense (which it's not), I think every network in the
world would be found guilty at one time or another. Should the networks
which broadcast the Swift Boat Veteran's lies and fabrications be found
guilty?

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

http://HireMe.geek.nz/ wrote:
> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
> row?

It doesn't have a license to lose. Networks don't require licenses in
the U.S..

The stations that air CBS network programs do require licenses and are
subject to sanction. Some of these stations are owned by the CBS
network - the majority aren't.

It's highly unlikely any of the stations will be sanctioned either.
There's no evidence CBS knew the documents were fake before they were
aired - indeed, there is evidence that they *weren't* fake - and even if
they knew the documents were fake that hasn't been grounds for FCC
sanction in the past.

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<cilkl0$rdq$1@xuxa.iecc.com>...
> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
> row?

Are you kidding?

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cilkl0$rdq$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
> row?

What row?

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:
> >Being liberal means never having to say that
> >you're sorry (or admit being wrong).
>
> Amen.

That's true, because conservatives NEVER
fabricated anything for their gain.
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Vidguy7 wrote:

>>If getting the facts wrong in
>>a news story where an offense (which it's not), I think every network in the
>>world would be found guilty at one time or another.
>
>
> FAR different between "getting your facts wrong" and deliberately interviewing
> ONLY those that are favorable to the story you want to get across.

I thought the discussion was about CBS, not Fox News.

Matthew

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:cio4fi$b20$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2004, http://HireMe.geek.nz/ wrote:
> > Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan
Rather
> > row?
>
> In a word: no.
>
> Nor will Dan Rather be fired. Some underling will take the blame and get
> fired instead.

Blame for what?


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"Paul Anderson" <paul.anderson@hp.com> wrote in message
news:cio4fh$b1u$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> In article <cilkl0$rdq$1@xuxa.iecc.com>, http://HireMe.geek.nz/
> <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan
Rather
> > row?
>
> CBS doesn't have "a" broadcasting license to "loose". They do own a
> number of stations, though, that have licenses. I doubt a journalistic
> mistake like this would cause someone to lose their license.

What mistake?

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ciporm$sr5$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> "Paul Anderson" <paul.anderson@hp.com> wrote in message
> news:cio4fh$b1u$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
>> In article <cilkl0$rdq$1@xuxa.iecc.com>, http://HireMe.geek.nz/
>> <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan
> Rather
>> > row?
>>
>> CBS doesn't have "a" broadcasting license to "loose". They do own a
>> number of stations, though, that have licenses. I doubt a journalistic
>> mistake like this would cause someone to lose their license.
>
> What mistake?

.... presenting fake documents as real in a news story.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 21 Sep 2004 02:42:58 GMT, Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Sep 2004, http://HireMe.geek.nz/ wrote:
>> Will the US CBS Network loose its broadcasting license over the Dan Rather
>> row?
>
>In a word: no.
>
>Nor will Dan Rather be fired. Some underling will take the blame and get
>fired instead.
>
>It will otherwise blow over. Being liberal means never having to say that
>you're sorry (or admit being wrong).
>

No that would be der fuhrer Bush.
Thumper
>-- Mark --
>
>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>Si vis pacem, para bellum.

To reply drop XYZ in address

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921120555.13199.00000922@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> If getting the facts wrong in
>>a news story where an offense (which it's not), I think every network in
>>the
>>world would be found guilty at one time or another.
>
> FAR different between "getting your facts wrong" and deliberately
> interviewing
> ONLY those that are favorable to the story you want to get across. Here
> they
> used as their "in-house expert", a guy that was nothing more than a
> librarian!!!! If that isn't PROOF that CBS had one thing in mind, "get
> Bush",
> then I don't know what does. Couple that with ignoring people that had
> evidence
> that their story was factually incorrect AND add to that the CBS producer
> calling the Kerry campaign to alert them to the story!!!
>
> The only good that comes out of this is that if there are any people
> remaining
> that didn't believe the liberal mainstream media distorts, lies,
> embellishes
> etc. to get their point across, I think they believe now!

Someone has to off set the lies, distortions and embellishments of the
conservatives.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Chet Hayes wrote:

> And CBS sure did a good job at that, didn't they? It's already
> impacting their ratings. Before it's over, some executives are going
> to get fired, and IMO, Rather himself should go. How credible an
> anchor would he be covering news on election night?

Of course, what is getting lost in the furor is that the information
about GW's lack of service was correct.

Matthew

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

> Life is going to be hell for Viacom for the next 4 years if Bush is
> reelected.

And well is should.

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"David Eduardo" <amdavid@pacbell.com> wrote in message
news:ciq02n$g3k$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
>

> > What mistake?
>
> ... presenting fake documents as real in a news story.


There's some indication it wasn't a mistake ... and CBS knew that.

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

On 21 Sep 2004 02:43:12 GMT, "Badger"
<cferriola@1removenumbers2triad.3rr.4com> wrote:

>For what? All they admitted to was making a mistake. They apologized
>for that. So in today's Politically correct, all you have to do is say
>you're sorry world, everyone will forget in a week or so.

Even if you don't say you're sorry everyone will forget in a week or
so.

Rich

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

On 21 Sep 2004 17:36:52 GMT, "Steve" <klam.massed@rcn.com> wrote:

>Life is going to be hell for Viacom for the next 4 years if Bush is
>reelected. It just goes to show... that if you're going to attack the king,
>you'd better make sure to kill him.

Nah. Just continue the political contributions and all will be well.

Rich

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

The Afghanistan war is worth fighting because Bin Laden was there.
The mission failed, and the troops were already in the area. So he
wanted to find something else to do. What is better than finishing
his father's job? The WMD and tie to 9/11 were all made up by the
liar to justify the war. Should we call this Iraq-gate?


"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<cipori$sqe$1@xuxa.iecc.com>...
> Really? I thought we invaded because he was an imminent threat to the United
> States and was involved in 9/11. Turns out neither was true. Now, Iran and
> Korea certainly are developing weapons of mass destruction. When's the
> invasion? Oh, I forgot again. We only invade third rate contries that have
> no real army or defense. It's like looking for your lost car keys 50 feet
> away under a street light because the light's better there then where you
> really lost them.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message news:<10l2sa3a1nvfa34@corp.supernews.com>...
> Chet Hayes wrote:
>
> > And CBS sure did a good job at that, didn't they? It's already
> > impacting their ratings. Before it's over, some executives are going
> > to get fired, and IMO, Rather himself should go. How credible an
> > anchor would he be covering news on election night?
>
> Of course, what is getting lost in the furor is that the information
> about GW's lack of service was correct.
>
> Matthew


The story was largely a rehash, without a lot of new information.
However, 60 mins did make new specific claims including that Bush's
superior officer was being pressured from higher ups to allow him to
transfer. That he refused a direct order to take a physical and his
superior officer was writing CYA memos. None of that has been shown
to be true and it was based on CBS's one dubious source with forged
documents. Even worse, they chose to ignore plenty of other evidence
and witnesses that completely contradicted the supposed new
information.

Or how about long after it was apparent that the documents were
forgeries and Dan Rather went on 60 mins again, with the 84 year old
former ANG secretary and her memories of 30+ years ago. Rather asked
her if she believed George Bush got into the ANG through preferential
treatment. She replied "Yes, I believe that. I've always felt that
way." Rather goes on to the next question.

So, here is a prime example of how Rather himself covered this story.
Here's 60 mins, known for busting into peoples offices unannounced,
asking tough questions, demanding proof. Yet, here Rather just lets
it go at "I've always felt that way." No further questions
necessary. A simple "What evidence do you have that you based that
on?" was way too much to expect from Rather.


And as to Bush's lack of service, he served 5 1/2 years in the ANG
before being discharged. In days served, that works out to the
equivalent of over 2 years full time service. At the time he got his
transfer and then early release, the ANG had so many pilots from the
Vietnam War winding down, that many have stated they also got early
releases because the ANG no longer had enough planes, or was retiring
the models they were flying and was actually happy to see them go.

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>FOX News is not "conservative" media. A Yale University study on media
>bias showed that, while FOX is right-of-center, it is was no more to the
>right than USA Today is left-of-center. CBS is much further to the left.
>FOX News is actually closer to the center than any other TV news.

USA Today has no content! How can something that provides basically no
analysis and no actual information be biased in any way?

I mean, you could learn more from reading the cereal box....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:citseg$q5a$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Rich Wood wrote:
> > I've noticed that trait among Conservatives, as well. FOX News isn't
> > known for retractions.
>
> How many times has FOX News been caught broadcasting as *fact* something
> that their own fact-checkers said was probably fake?
>
> At least to date, FOX News has been quite a bit more careful than CBS.
>
> FOX News is not "conservative" media. A Yale University study on media
> bias showed that, while FOX is right-of-center, it is was no more to the
> right than USA Today is left-of-center. CBS is much further to the left.
> FOX News is actually closer to the center than any other TV news.
>

What did the study examine? News? Or all of the Fox broadcasts including
their commentators?

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 23 Sep 2004 19:43:24 GMT, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:

>"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cit7qj$par$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
>> The Afghanistan war is worth fighting because Bin Laden was there.
>> The mission failed, and the troops were already in the area. So he
>> wanted to find something else to do. What is better than finishing
>> his father's job?
>
>Read his father's book "A World Transformed". He did not finish the job. He
>did a job his father explained should not be done because of the exact
>consequences we are now facing.
>Pg. 489 A World Transformed by George Bush and Brent Scowcroft -
>"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The
>coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger
>and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no
>viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles.
>Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for
>handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
>thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have
>destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we
>hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could
>conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would
>have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."
>
>
Instead of going to a shrink to work out the issues he had with his
father, he started a war.

How said for us.
Thumper
> The WMD and tie to 9/11 were all made up by the
>> liar to justify the war. Should we call this Iraq-gate?
>>
>
>Maybe just irwreck.

To reply drop XYZ in address

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

McWebber wrote:

>
> What did the study examine? News? Or all of the Fox broadcasts including
> their commentators?
>

Quote from the study:

" Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news,
and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological
measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing
measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more
liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative
than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an
ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times,
the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News?
Special Report, and all three networks? nightly news shows.

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the
news outlets except Fox News? Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our
measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the
Drudge Report, and ABC?s World News Tonight) were closer to the
average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House
of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge
Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our
other measure found that Fox News? Special Report is the most
centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the
outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters
to the editor from our sample. "

Doug McDonald

Archived from groups: alt.radio.broadcasting,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,rec.radio.broadcasting (More info?)

to quote an earlier poster, damn, that must be good weed you're smoking.



"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cj6nst$o42$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> Rich Wood wrote:
>
> > On 23 Sep 2004 07:02:40 GMT, Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>FOX News is not "conservative" media. A Yale University study on media
> >>bias showed that, while FOX is right-of-center, it is was no more to the
> >>right than USA Today is left-of-center. CBS is much further to the
left.
> >>FOX News is actually closer to the center than any other TV news.
> >>
> >>There is no conservative news channel.
> >
> >
> > Damn! Tha must be good weed you're smoking!
> >
>
>
> It's actually true. There are of course conservative
> talk shows. But no actual "news channel" that is
> consistently substantially to right of center. That's
> exactly what the previously quoted showed.
>
> All except Fox and MSNBC are very far left of center.
>
> People who say things like "Fox is right wing" are
> simply WRONG. They are weong because they are using
> a cloud cookoo land definition of center. That is, they
> simply assign themselves ... quite left wing people ...
> as center.
>
> Whe you ACTUALLY look at the real world, for example,
> the Congress, Fox is very close to the center. If you
> look at all the people, same result.
>
> Doug McDonald
>