Shocking Twist, and Malkin doesn't have to go to Iraq

[Amianthus]

would, if they had a single fucking brain in their head, opt for choice (a), which has the added advantages of not leaving them vulnerable to perpetual blackmail by the bribed government official, not costing them any more money in bribes and lawyers' fees, not exposing them to further risk of embarrassment by keeping a bunch of dishonest and/or incompetent schmucks on the payroll, and last but not least, of doing the right thing.

And you'd think the same thing of the CBS "forged memos" which CBS stood behind, until they came out as a hoax.

And you'd think the same thing of the NBC "exploding truck" report, which NBC also stood behind, until proof came out that the "tests" they did included an explosive because they couldn't get the truck to actually explode just by hitting it with another vehicle.

And you'd think the same thing of Reuters, standing behind a photographer who routinely "Photoshopped" his pictures (and claiming it was "standard practice"), until they took too much heat for it.

There is a whole history of media "embellishing" the truth, going back decades.

You've seen this photo of Lincoln, right?



That's Lincoln's head on Calhoun's body. Guess Calhoun's body looked better. Here is the original photo:



Here's another one, this one was on a live feed:



That CBS logo on the building in Times Square behind the reporter was, in reality, an NBC logo - the computer switched logos on the live feed as it was being broadcast, in real time.

There are many, many more cases that can be documented of media companies performing questionable acts. It's touching to see the faith you have in the media "doing the right thing."

[Amianthus]

Here's another one, this time with an election 2004 theme:



Here are the original photos, each taken at completely different events, in different years:





But you go on believeing that media in general will "do the right thing."

[Michael Tee]

YAAAAAWWWWNNNN.  Wake me up when you find media execs who actually risk committing a federal offense to cover for a dishonest employee.  Who actually bribe a government officer to produce a false report.

Hint: standing up initially for the employee until his case becomes insupportable doesn't count.

[Michael Tee]

Here's another one, this time with an election 2004 theme:



Here are the original photos, each taken at completely different events, in different years:





But you go on believeing that media in general will "do the right thing."

I believe they'll go to a certain level to cover up for an employee, but you're implying they'll take it to a whole new level, and the level you argue they'll take it to has its own unique disadvantages, not the least of them being risk of federal prosecution, added expense, vulnerability to blackmail, exponentially magnified damage to reputation, etc.  The extremes that you claim to have shown aren't extreme at all in comparison to what you say they would do in the instant case.  It's just silly and crazy to believe that's how things work.  The reporter is expendable.  There are plenty more where he or she came from.  The usual case is the guy gets fired and everyone moves on.  Your examples are bizarre exceptions but nowhere near as bizarre as what you propose.

But thanks for the photos of a truly beautiful woman.  I've always been a fan and it's great to be reminded again with concrete evidence of Jane Fonda's dazzling beauty of mind, body and spirit.

[BT]

There is an old saying that the coverup is often worse than the crime.

The crime was sloppy editing. Someone at AP should have demanded that Jamil Huessien be produced the minute there was a question as to who he was and where he was assigned. Not like he was an anomynous source who preferred to remain clandestine for fear of retaliation. AP named him in 61 stories. Apparently they were not too concerned for his well being.

And when it became apparent producing Jamil was easier said than done, AP management went into full blown coverup and stonewall mode that would have done Nixon proud.

And you say it is unlikely they would have bribed an Iraqi official in a culture where bribery is as commonplace as figs?

Please.

[Amianthus]

Wake me up when you find media execs who actually risk committing a federal offense to cover for a dishonest employee.

Putting a vehicle on the air and saying it is so poorly designed that it will explode, then showing a faked film sequence of the truck exploding to support it, is fraud.

[Michael Tee]

<<Putting a vehicle on the air and saying it is so poorly designed that it will explode, then showing a faked film sequence of the truck exploding to support it, is fraud.>>

You still haven't established the culpability of the media executives in the alleged fraud.  As far as I know, it could have been the same guys who produced the original report.

And we don't know that any actual fraud was committed - - nobody was charged with fraud, nobody convicted.  We don't know, in fact, if anything was done that constituted a fraud that slipped through the cracks of the criminal justice system.

What you're alleging is that the borderline episodes you've dredged up are somehow as blatant as bribing an official of a foreign government to alter a record.  As open to blackmail as the bribing of a government official.  And you haven't come close.  You don't have a single historical example of anything like what BT is alleging.

[Amianthus]

You still haven't established the culpability of the media executives in the alleged fraud.  As far as I know, it could have been the same guys who produced the original report.

Michael G. Gartner, president of the news division, resigned over the incident. I guess he felt guilty for "doing the right thing."