Exit polling internal review finds...

[Eidolon Faer]

So the question remains -- why would I get these emails? I don't know.

Maybe because you signed up for them?

Relbeek, you are the only person I know who was on that email distribution list. That is, in itself, cause for conspiracy theory speculation.

However, when you post things like:

I'm on two Republican mailing lists and I received at least two emails telling me not to participate in exit polls.

Deliberate interference won the day.

and...

It puzzled me, actually, why anyone would want to thwart polls.

My best speculation is that they want to sabotage the validity of polls in general... or possibly create an overcount of Republicans (by overcompensation) in tracking polls. Not sure. It wasn't going to alter the election, to be sure. Perhaps it was part of a gambit to create more grist for the "liberal media bias" mill.

...you'll have to explain how I'm "quoting you out of context" when I observe that you're trying to float some nebulous Republican Konspiracy theory that makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh, and no, you didn't mention Bush by name. However, given that those email lists you subscribed to were both related to the Bush Campaign, and that those alleged emails were the source of your konspiracy ideas, you'll understand me when I say that was probably where you'd have been going next if your initial hypothesis hadn't failed the laugh test.

[Relbeek Einre]

Actually neither Email list was Bush campaign, they were both Republican Party, one state, one national. Which is several steps removed from Bush.

By the way, it's really disappointing to me your behavior these last few days. I really hope the desire you have to upset and alienate, even at the cost of your own honor and integrity, some day gets purged from your system. It's cost you a lot of friends over the years and you really need to find better ways of dealing with your anger. I really don't like feeling pity, it's an uncomfortable emotion.

BTW, Bush is a pretty witty guy. He cracked me up last night... "And I would like to thank Dick Cheney, the best Vice President in the history of the United States. Oh, sorry Dad." Great line, very persnable. I still say Bush would be a great guy to hang out at a bar with, argue politics and throw back a few beverages of choice.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh...and Relbeek...

In the same post you accuse me of quoting you out of context, you lie about what I said.

First of all, while I regard your continued "ZOMG Republicans are anti-intellectual" babbling to be highly entertaining and amusing, I never said the Republicans hated the Media. I said they found pollsters to be rude and intrusive. One would hope that a pro-intellectual Liberal like yourself would be less sloppy with his logic.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm not going to bother to refute your assertion that the Right has owned the Media since 2000. I'm too busy reading the CBS Independent Report on Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.

[Relbeek Einre]

When did I say you said the Republicans hate the media? I didn't. I just said the Republicans hate the media. Didn't attribute it to you at all. Once again, you distort and twist to make your points with hostility. It's very uncomfortable to witness.

[Ddrak]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm not going to bother to refute your assertion that the Right has owned the Media since 2000. I'm too busy reading the CBS Independent Report on Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.

The one that says it wasn't politically motivated, but done in an effort to break the story first and then refuse to lose face by saying you were wrong?

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

Sssh, Ddrak, don't you know they were paid off by Kerry to write that story?

Oops, wait, I'm mixing that up with Armstrong Williams.

[Rsak]

Nice to that in your efforts to save the honor and integrity of your friend you destroy your own!

[Sindarre]

Well since we are throwing out wild conspiracy theories I wanna add one I read.

The liberal pollsters noticed their man Kerry going down in flames and decided to turn it around. By floating false numbers early they hoped to suppress the Republican turnout. Democrats vote early (true) and often (a punchline) while Republicans tend to vote later in the afternoon (true) because they actually work vice milking welfare while shooting up at home like most democrats (obligatory class stereotype-- Klast would be proud). So the theory was they would leak that the race was esentially over and everyone can go home. They knew that they would catch more republicans in the net and deliver a Kerry victory in a late run. They could massage their later numbers (which they did) to save face and credibilaty but by then it would be late since Republicans were already at home playing with their family and would not dream of leaving while democrats who were probably only hanging out in a comedy club talking about who would get to suck John Stewart's dick first (couldn't resist) would gladly jump at the opportunity to vote for Kerry at the last minute.

Going by this theory it is safe to assume that without the liberal media/pollster influence Bush would have won by an even greater margin.

Yeah... that's the ticket.

[Relbeek Einre]

Wow, Rsak, I'm amazed you thought I had any to begin with.

But for once you have a point. I should have said ten words less, at least publicly.

[yutsano]

God damn, Sindarre, I love your sarcasm, even when I don't agree with you.

[Eidolon Faer]

True, he SHOULD have said less publicly. You should see what I've been getting privately from him.

[Relbeek Einre]

No, probably not.

[Eidolon Faer]

Ddrak,

Actually, if you read the report, they didn't clear CBS of political motives, they just said they couldn't prove it. Which is an easy dodge, since proving someone's motives for a crime generally requires either a Vulcan Mindmeld or a blatant quid pro quo.

Page 38 of the report says:

The Panel is aware that some have ascribed political motivations to 60 Minutes Wednesday's decision to air the September 8 Segment just two months before the presidential election, while others found political bias in the program itself. The Panel reviewed this issue and found certain actions that could support such charges. However, The Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its' content.

Page 71 of the report has a quite fascinating excerpt from Mary Mapes' email, sent to her by Michael Smith, a freelance journalist from Texas who was working with Mapes on the story, and who initially dug Burkett out from under a rock and introduced him to Mapes:

Late on Monday, August 30, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett agreed to meet with Mapes and Smith on Thursday, September 2 and to show them some documents. In apparent anticipation that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett might be reluctant to show them the documents, Smith e-mailed a detailed proposal to Mapes on Tuesday, August 31, regarding putting Lieutenant Colonel Burkett in touch with an agent for a book deal, and Smith indicated that he would try to work something out with his publishing friends.

Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine...

What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election... What I am asking is in this best case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent sized advance payment and get it turned around quickly?

Then they will respond with some possible scenarios of what they could do. When we get to Burkett's house I will have at least some scenarios to show Burkett about what could happen if he played ball with the documents. If he shows us what we want, then I can call my friend and tell him the real details and start the process.

Smith told the panel that the book deal was his idea, and that it was "not a 60 Minutes deal." Mapes responded in an e-mail to Smith's proposal. stating "that looks good, hypothetically speaking, of course." Notably, she did not tell Smith in her reply e-mail that he could not promote the book deal in order to entice Lieutenant Colonel Burkett, although she told The Panel that neither this, nor the options presented in Smith's reply e-mail described below, were real options in fact. Smith wrote in reply:

Just in case Burkett asks -- let me make sure I have this right. This is our plan: if he shows us some leg, we are going to talk to him about his options in the following areas: 1) Security, 2) Publishing, 2A) (related topics of "taking care of him" with money) and 3) forcing Kerry Campaign to acknowledge his wisdom and strategic abilities... If his leg is sexy and useful then we are going to do whatever it takes to help him in those areas.

Clearly Mapes' direct subordinate on the story was openly discussing "changing the momentum of an election" and clearly Mapes found Burkett's leg sexy and useful, as her subsequent call to Joe Lockhart proved. No, it doesn't PROVE that Mapes and Smith had large axes to grind, but it certainly "could support such charges."

[Ddrak]

They couldn't prove it, which in a country where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven says to me that political motives aren't that relavent. Those quotes indicate to me that CBS wanted to break an election changing story - not for political motives but to be at the center of the action.

Of course, if you wish to uphold suspicion and innuendo over what can and can't be proven then you're most welcome, but that puts you squarely among the likes of journalists and other gutter trash.

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

Were this a court of law, you'd be absolutely right about "innocent until proven guilty".

There are a few problems with your analogy, however:

1. CBS was found guilty of appallingly bad journalistic practices, and the report pointed out numerous violations of CBS's own routine practices of journalistic fact checking. Thus, they've already confessed to the crime and this is merely relevant to the sentencing, to use your flawed analogy.

2. OJ Simpson was acquitted in a criminal trial and later convicted in a civil wrongful death case. I find it amazing that anyone who hasn't been living under a rock wouldn't understand the difference between the legal thresholds of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "the preponderance of the evidence". Given the email excerpts contained in the CBS Independent Report, the preponderance of the evidence is quite clear: Mary Mapes and her immediate subordinate were willfuly performing a hatchet job on Bush.

3. The whole issue of CBS is only relevant to this thread as a counterpoint to Relbeek's assertion that the Republicans have owned the media since 2000. You were quite quick to leap in and rip the evidence I presented as insufficient, but Relbeek presented no evidence whatsoever to bolster his basic point. Nor have you. I find it ironic that certain individuals on this board choose to call Republicans "anti-intellectual" instead of presenting reasoned arguments to back up their assertions.

[Ddrak]

Personally I find that treating people as innocent of a premise (in this case doing the hatchet job for political reasons) is a laudible goal both inside and outside a court of law. If you abandon that then you are giving license to paparazzi style news reporting and rumormongering - something I despise from all quarters.

I don't find any of the "facts" you've presented a problem with my analogy:

1. You've defined the "crime" as appalingly bad journalistic practices. This says nothing of the *motive*. When you redefine the "crime" to include that motive then the guilt hasn't been established at all. In fact, there's no evidence to support that conclusion and not even your precious Occam's razor provides that result (the simplest explanation is they were over-enthusiastic in breaking a big story).

2. The preponderance of evidence shows that Mapes was doing a hatchet job on Bush to get a big story out there. That does not imply political motives. It implies journalistic motives of breaking a story. While the evidence can be massaged to fit the political conspiracy theory, it also fits the absence of one - which is the usual problem for conspiracy theorists.

3. I don't give a damn about Relbeek's basic point. I thought you were doing pretty well arguing that until you dumped this bizarre and prejudiced thing about CBS into the thread. If however you don't feel you were doing well enough at rebutting Relbeek and needed my help then by all means let me know.

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

*shrug*

My own personal belief is that if Mapes' motives were the journalistic joy of breaking a hot story, she wouldn't have so blatantly and repeatedly discarded her journalistic ethical safeguards during said pursuit.

Also, when you start seeing emails with stuff in them like "Well, we need to get some payola for Burkett before he'll give us the (forged) docs, but we need to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that this is NOT a quid pro quo *wink wink nudge nudge*" I tend to wonder what exactly the idiots writing these emails are up to.

A basic rule of corporate life: if you absolutely HAVE TO do something unethical, don't write corporate memos saying "I AM EVIL AND AM DOING THIS FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF SATAN BWAHAHAHA!" and then place the memos on file for the convenience of later criminal prosecutors. Email is even worse. Ask Maltheos if you don't believe me.

Mary Mapes is not a drooling moron. If she was, she wouldn't have gotten to the position she held at CBS. If she considered the email exchanges with Smith I quoted as sufficiently innocuous that she didn't immediately fire off an emailed reply slapping Smith down for unethical practices, the most straightforward conclusion I can draw is that she and Smith were doing things so dirty that the payola scheme WAS innocuous by comparison.

[Ddrak]

As a wise (but short) Frog once said, N'attribuez jamais à la malveillance ce qui s'explique très bien par l'incompétence.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Never allot to ill will what is explained very well by incompetence.

Napoleon Bonaparte

/shrug

[Sindarre]

This is not Good Will Hunting and neither of you are Matt Damon. So you two can cut the intellectual penis waving. No one is impressed except yourselves.