I was listening to talk radio last week and one of these talkie talk kinds of guys, I don't remember his name, was asking listeners to call in with their opinions about what to do when traditional media dies, because nobody wants to pay for subscriptions or advertising, and when that happens there will be no way to get news, which will make the free functioning of our liberal democracy in danger or something like that. Someone called in and said, well, hey no worries, because he'd just get his information from blogs. And then the talkie kind of guy says yeah, but what will the bloggers blog about when the the old skool journalists don't have the money to spend time in Iraq or Afghanistan, or whatever, and there are no stories or "hard news" for the bloggers to get bloggy and linky with. Touche. And then this stoner guy called in, and said he'd be able to get "hard news" from Twitter. But then the talkie guy ridiculed him and made fun of Twitter, and the stoner guy was too stoned to defend his point, which could easily have been accomplished by mentioning Mike Yon or Michael Totten, or the fact that much of the news we got out of Iran during their stolen election came from Iranians using Twitter. Heck, Twitter was the news of that stolen election.
Fast forward to today.
I'm hitting up my Google News and I find a story from Reuters, written by a fellow named Steve Holland. And I come across this quote:
"The president is going to hear opinions from people he trusts and respects who are likely to be at odds with each other. In the end he has to make the decision," said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.A fairly innocuous quote, as I'm sure you'll agree. Which struck me as odd: Why on earth would an administration official feel compelled to give such an innocuous quote on condition of anonymity? I can think of just two possible answers. The first is that there is no such administration official, and that Mr. Holland pulled the quote out of a paper bag. And the second is that the administration official was so uninterestingly junior and unimportant that Mr. Holland was embarrassed to mention him as a source. Either way, it strikes me that hard news isn't quite up to the august standards set by Dan Rather back in the day.
-- Uber Pig
Wow -- I just received an email from Dan Rather:
Dear Mr. Pig, I was able to set up a Google News Feed to show whenever people write about me in news articles or on their blogs, and so stumbled across your bloggings. I appreciated your musings on the state of journalism as well as your implicit acknowledgement of the high standards I set -- Standards which are still higher than a flock of giraffes on roller blades. No doubt you have followed the railroading given to me by that harridan Les Moonves of CBS and that scrunched up old ball sac Sumner Redstone of Viacom, as well as the absurd ruling laid down by the New York State court of appeals:Wow. Just wow.NEW YORK (Reuters) – A New York state appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former TV newsman Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS Corp in which Rather claimed he was made a scapegoat in a scandal over a 2004 report on then-President George W. Bush's military record.Well my good friend Uber, I'm not going to take it lying down. I'm tougher than week-old East Texas road kill. Which is why I sued them both in the first place. And now that I've become an expert on the Interwebs, I've been able to do my own research. I'll be appealing to the US Supreme Court now, using new evidence I was able to uncover by following Moonves and Redstone on Twitter. Boy I tell you, I have them cornered tighter than Bernie Madoff wearing spandex with these direct quotations. If their hands aren't dog-dick red then I don't know what is. From February 4, 2005:
The ruling on Tuesday by a panel of judges of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division said Rather's $70 million complaint should be dismissed in its entirety and that a lower court erred in denying CBS's motion to throw out the lawsuit.
Rather says CBS breached his contract by not giving him enough on-air assignments after he was removed as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" in March 2005.
The appeals court ruled he failed to sufficiently support his claim that he lost business opportunities due to CBS's failure to release him to seek other employment. Rather sued CBS, parent of the CBS television network, Viacom and others in September 2007, claiming he had been made a scapegoat to "pacify the White House." CBS was part of Viacom until the companies split in 2006.@lesbianmoonunit is looking at this contract he has with Dan Rather, trying to figure out which turd burglars in the legal department allowed the clause in there about maintaining his air time.June 02, 2006:
@andrewheyward has it all under control. Schieffer is in the house!@sumnerballsac is thinking Dan Rather's salary is pretty high.June 04, 2006June 06, 2006
@sumnerballsac is wondering what to do about these forged National Guard documents
@lesbianmoonunit Hit me up on AIM and we'll figure out who to scapegoat. I'm thinking Cheney will need a big name to be pacified.
@Sumnerballsac You mean Dan?
@lesbianmoonunit Shhhhhhh...@lesbianmoonunit Happy "D-Day!" it is, then. The beginning of the end. As long as if by "D" you understand that I mean "Dan." Heh.Jun 30, 2006@sumnerballsac Rachel Maddow wants to hire Dan Rather! Hilarious. That will be a cold day in hell.
So again, thanks for keeping the faith and I'll keep you updated as this fights gets into later rounds