ABC Considers Leading with Good News, But Goes with Bad, in Iraq --3/4/2005

1. ABC Considers Leading with Good News, But Goes with Bad, in Iraq
ABC's Peter Jennings revealed Thursday night that "this is one of those days in the newsroom where the discussion focused, ever so briefly, on whether to begin with the good news or the bad" -- Steve Fossett's flight around the world without re-fueling or the military death count in Iraq reaching 1,500. "It was a short conversation," Jennings admitted as the background image behind him switched to a row of rifles in boots with helmets atop them, the designation for a fallen soldier, and ABC went with the bad news. Following Martha Raddatz's story, which failed to note that more 350 of the deaths were not combat-related, Jennings touted a "sobering" number from Iraq Body Count, which he described as "an independent Web site," that "says as many as 18,000 Iraqis may have been killed." In fact, Jennings' "independent" group is a far-left outfit. Of the Iraq war, the site declares: "We walked (or were led) blindly into a war for which there was, and still is, no justification."

2. When Fleischer Raises Media Bias, Lauer Pounces on WMD Claims
When former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on Thursday's Today, raised media bias, maintaining that it's "easier to be a Democrat talking to the press than a Republican," Matt Lauer avoided the topic and jumped in to press Fleischer about "getting things right and wrong" before the Iraq war when Fleischer asserted Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lauer asserted: "Didn't prove to be true. Regrets, embarrassment, frustration, what?" A Monday Washington Post story on Fleischer's book, Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House, disclosed that the book provides a list of examples of liberal bias, including at least one first highlighted in CyberAlert. And the New York Times dismissed Fleischer's evidence of liberal media bias.

3. Rather: Memos Real, Insists to Letterman "Nobody Lied" at CBS
Dan Rather made clear on Thursday's Late Show with David Letterman that he thinks the George Bush National Guard memos are authentic and is still smarting over the appointment of Nixonite Richard Thornburgh to head the investigatory panel. Rather predicted that "given a little more time, perhaps we could have" authenticated the memos, downgraded the potential impact of his story as he maintained that "George Bush was destined to be re-elected pretty much whatever happened in August and September," described Thornburgh as someone who "was in the Nixon administration, says the Bushes are good friends of his, both President one and two Bush," crowed about how the panel found the story "was not motivated by political bias, and they said that, although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic," resurrected his charge that those who attacked CBS over the story had "their own political motivations and agendas" and contended how, unlike in the Jayson Blair case at the New York Times, at CBS News "nobody lied."

4. Re-Welcome to the New CyberAlert and Our Two New Versions
Re-Welcome to the new CyberAlert. We launched our new versions on Thursday, but ran into a snafu with excessively wide pages in our new HTML and table of contents versions. That should be corrected with today's edition. Those who are reading this via e-mail have successfully joined one of the lists for one of the three versions of CyberAlert now available: HTML, table of contents or plain text. If you don't like the version you picked, follow the instructions in this item below on how to switch to a different version. HTML and table of contents subscribers can click on the headline over this text block. Plus, we welcome your feedback on how our formats look and work.

Correction: An item in the March 3 CyberAlert referred to Al Sharpton as a "Democratic Congressman." He is not. He's a reverend and a former Democratic presidential candidate. His hairstyle must of reminded me of Congressman Charlie Rangel.

ABC Considers Leading with Good News,
But Goes with Bad, in Iraq

ABC's Peter Jennings revealed Thursday night that "this is one of those days in the newsroom where the discussion focused, ever so briefly, on whether to begin with the good news or the bad" -- Steve Fossett's flight around the world without re-fueling or the military death count in Iraq reaching 1,500. "It was a short conversation," Jennings admitted as the background image behind him switched to a row of rifles in boots with helmets atop them, the designation for a fallen soldier, and ABC went with the bad news. Following Martha Raddatz's story, which failed to note that more 350 of the deaths were not combat-related, Jennings touted a "sobering" number from Iraq Body Count, which he described as "an independent Web site," that "says as many as 18,000 Iraqis may have been killed." In fact, Jennings' "independent" group is a far-left outfit. Of the Iraq war, the site declares: "We walked (or were led) blindly into a war for which there was, and still is, no justification."

(NBC Nightly News led with Fossett and the CBS Evening News began with a piece on complaints about the lack of adequate training for TSA officers.)

Jennings led the March 3 World News Tonight, as corrected against the closed-captioning by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth:
"Good evening, everyone. This is one of those days in the newsroom where the discussion focused, ever so briefly, on whether to begin with the good news or the bad. A solo, pretty heroic nonstop flight around the world? Or the latest overall number of how many Americans -- soldiers and Marines -- have died in Iraq? [background switches to the dead soldiers' rifles in boots with helmets atop them] It was a short conversation. We learned today that the number of Americans -- soldiers and Marines, men and women -- who have died in Iraq has now reached 1,500. First, here's ABC's Martha Raddatz."

From the Pentagon, Raddatz explained: "Looking at the entire list of U.S. casualties, you get a revealing portrait of the war. The latest deaths, two soldiers in Baghdad, hit by a roadside bomb like so many before them. Nearly half the U.S. troops killed under hostile circumstances in Iraq have been struck by explosive devices. Mortars, rockets and small arms claimed the next highest number, more than 370. The majority of those who have given their lives, more than 900, were very young, between 18 and 25 years old. Today, Pentagon officials pointed to some seemingly encouraging statistics -- February had the lowest number of U.S. military deaths, 58, since last July. The Pentagon argued today it is because the insurgents are not as effective."
Larry DiRita, Pentagon spokesman: "Their capability is becoming somewhat cruder in their ability to anticipate and target because the coalition's intelligence is getting better."
Raddatz: "That may be true, but it is also true that nearly three times as many Americans were killed this February [on screen: 58 dead] compared to February a year ago [20 dead]. The violence in Iraq is clearly making it more difficult for the U.S. to attract new troops. The U.S. Army said today it missed a key recruiting goal for the first time in nearly five years. The Army shipped more than 5,000 new recruits to boot camp last month, but that was nearly 2,000 shy of its goal. For the second month in a row, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal. Today, recruiter Jean Corvoisier was working hard to turn those figures around. But he was also downplaying the effects of the war."
Sergeant Jean Corvoisier, USMC Career Recruiter: "Marine Corps recruiting has always been a marathon, not a sprint."
Raddatz concluded: "Marine Corps research shows it's the parents, Peter, who are the problem. They do not want their children going to Iraq because of the continuing violence."

With matching numbers on screen, Jennings then asserted: "There are two other sobering numbers from Iraq today: 11,220 U.S. troops have been wounded since the war began. There are no official numbers of Iraqi casualties. But Iraq Body Count, an independent Web site that compiles media reports of the deaths there, says as many as 18,000 Iraqis may have been killed."

ABC's graphic read: "As many as 18,395 Iraqi civilians have been killed."

The home page for Jennings' "independent" group: www.iraqbodycount.net [1]

A quick check shows that the group is really a far-left effort, led by some activists with "peace" groups, to discredit the entire war on terror. An excerpt from a very lengthy February 7 press release:

2. The blood-spattered balance sheet in the "war on terror"

So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on...

For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return....

We walked (or were led) blindly into a war for which there was, and still is, no justification. It is time we opened our eyes and discovered the full effect of this terrible mistake on the people of Iraq.

END of Excerpt

For that lengthy treatise in full: www.iraqbodycount.net [2]

When Fleischer Raises Media Bias, Lauer
Pounces on WMD Claims

When former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on Thursday's Today, raised media bias, maintaining that it's "easier to be a Democrat talking to the press than a Republican," Matt Lauer avoided the topic and jumped in to press Fleischer about "getting things right and wrong" before the Iraq war when Fleischer asserted Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lauer asserted: "Didn't prove to be true. Regrets, embarrassment, frustration, what?" A Monday Washington Post story on Fleischer's book, Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House, disclosed that the book provides a list of examples of liberal bias, including at least one first highlighted in CyberAlert. And the New York Times dismissed Fleischer's evidence of liberal media bias.

Fleischer began his media tour for the book on Thursday, doing Today in the morning and in prime time FNC's Hannity & Colmes followed by MSNBC's Scarborough Country, as well as Comedy Central's Daily Show. Sean Hannity briefly took up the media bias subject with Fleischer and Joe Scarborough explored it at length with Fleischer. (Just noticed Fleischer on Friday's Early Show on CBS in the 8:30am half hour.)

Fleischer appeared in-studio with Lauer in the 7:30am half hour of the March 3 Today and the MRC's Geoff Dickens picked up on this part of the interview:

Lauer: "Is it fair to say Ari that there is a certain suspicion on the part of the White House for the press?"
Fleischer: "Well I think every White House develops a sense of weariness and this is a part of what I wrote about. I think the press' first bias is not ideological I think it's in favor of conflict, regardless of who they cover. Another example that's in the book, Matt, is remember that haircut that President Clinton got in California, that $200 haircut? Delayed all those flights. It delayed one flight for two minutes and none of the press, almost none of the press corrected their stories-"
Lauer: "But when Andy Card, the White House Chief of Staff quote, was quoted as saying, quote, 'I don't believe they,' referring to the press, 'have a check and balance function.' Is that a fair statement on your part?" Fleischer: "Yeah I disagree, I disagree with that. I do think so and I wrote that in the book. One of the things I wrote and I put it prominently in the book is we are a better and stronger country 'cause the press get a thousand things right everyday. And that's true. But I also talked about the things where I thought there were issues with the press, ideological issues where I think, on policy issues, particularly social policy. It's easier to be a Democrat talking to the press than a Republican."
Lauer jumped in to cut him off: "Let's talk about getting-"
Fleischer: "But be clear I did say the press gets things right and we're a better country. And that's, that's essential."
Lauer tried again: "Let's talk about getting things right and wrong and for the control room I'm jumping ahead to a soundbite here. In the days leading up to the war you were very strong about the reasons the United States was going to war with Iraq, okay? And we talked about weapons of mass destruction. Let's play that tape."
Fleischer, at undated White House briefing: "Well there's no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. This was the reason that the President felt so strongly that we needed to take military action to disarm Saddam Hussein."
Lauer: "Didn't prove to be true. Regrets, embarrassment, frustration, what?"
Fleischer: "Frustration." And he went on to point out how all intelligence agencies, as well as Bill Clinton and John Kerry, believed Iraq had WMD.

Lauer moved on to the media favorite obsession: "I can't let you go without asking about Jeff Gannon who's the reporter, the Washington bureau chief for Talon News, found out now that he had an alias. That of course he was asking some very easy questions of the administration. When you were the press secretary, you stopped going to him for questions. Why did you do that and are you surprised they went back to him after you left?"
Fleischer: "Well I stopped calling on him because I heard he worked for something called GOPUSA. And my line in the sand is that if you work for a political party or candidate you're not a reporter but I was assured that GOPUSA, despite its name, was not a part of the party. His editor called me to tell me that and I confirmed it with the Republican National Committee."
Lauer: "Were you surprised that the, the current press secretary went back to calling on him?"
Fleischer: "Well I do think that there is a slippery slope if government officials stop calling on reporters based on ideology. Because that room is home to a lot of colorful characters left and right. And I used to call them mainstream reporters first and then I tried to get to the colorful characters at the very end. 'Cause they too are entitled to questions and the government should not pick and choose reporters on the basis of ideology."

In Monday's Washington Post, Howard Kurtz previewed Fleisher's book and highlighted his evidence of liberal media bias. In the February 28 article, "Ari Fleischer's View From the Briefing Room," Kurtz relayed several Fleischer's examples, starting with:
"Rather than hurl adjectives about media bias, Fleischer inundates the reader with examples. Two days after Bill Clinton took office, Dan Rather reported: "Today with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years." When Bush rescinded the Clinton order, Rather said: "This was President Bush's first day at the office, and he did something to quickly please the right flank in his party." (ABC had a similar shift in tone.)"

For Kurtz's article in full: www.washingtonpost.com [3]

As for how ABC did it too, so did NBC, as recounted in the January 23, 2001 CyberAlert which tracked down the contrasts from the three broadcast network evening newscasts:
What's the difference between a "controversial" decision by a new President "wading into controversy" with an action "designed to appeal to...conservatives" as he "did something to quickly please the right flank in his party" and a new President having "delivered on his campaign promise" by taking a non-ideological action which shows how he "keeps his word"?

For the complete rundown showing the 1993 versus 2001 contrasts for ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, see the January 23, 2001 CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org [4]

In a Tuesday book review, the New York Times unpersuasively dismissed Fleischer's evidence of bias. An excerpt from a March 1 TimesWatch.org article by Clay Waters, about the review. TimesWatch is the MRC's site dedicated to documenting and exposing the liberal political agenda of the New York Times. The excerpt:

Chief book critic Michiko Kakutani takes on "Taking Heat," Ari Fleischer's memoirs of his days as White House press secretary Tuesday in a review titled "After Years of Taking Heat, Spokesman Takes Potshots."

That headline neatly sums up the dismissive tone of Kakutani's piece, which ignores the debate that Fleischer's "tedious and tendentious" book raises about liberal bias in the press corps: "'Taking Heat' takes a lot of potshots at the press (including The New York Times), and it reads like the very embodiment of the administration's disciplined, corporate-style message control."

She eventually returns to Fleischer's bias accusations, only to sidestep the issue: "Mr. Fleischer also stays on message when it comes to griping about the media, echoing other administration members' frequently repeated accusations that the press is guilty of negativity, liberal bias and an obsession with conflict. In presenting his complaints about the media, Mr. Fleischer is highly selective in his citation of examples, often ignoring facts that might undermine his thesis or underscore the flip side of his assertions. He cites a 1999 poll by the Pew Research Center showing that more than two-thirds of the national press corps thought the distinction between reporting and commentary had seriously eroded, and suggests that there is 'an ideological bias in the media' that reflects the opinions of the Democrats 'far more than the Republicans.'"

Kakutani's follows with this rather lame rejoinder, which totally ignores the three major networks: "It's an argument that sidesteps the fact that cable news channels usually feature conservative and liberal guests in perfectly matched pairs ' la 'Crossfire.' It's also an argument that shrugs off the very loud voices of conservatives on Fox News and talk radio -- voices that no less a conservative than William Kristol has noted have provided 'much more balance' in a media environment once criticized by those on the right as being too liberal."...

END of Excerpt

For the TimesWatch piece in full: www.timeswatch.org [5]

For Kakutani's review in full: www.nytimes.com [6]

Amazon.com's page for Fleischer's book: www.amazon.com [7]

Rather: Memos Real, Insists to Letterman
"Nobody Lied" at CBS

Dan Rather made clear on Thursday's Late Show with David Letterman that he thinks the George Bush National Guard memos are authentic and is still smarting over the appointment of Nixonite Richard Thornburgh to head the investigatory panel. Rather predicted that "given a little more time, perhaps we could have" authenticated the memos, downgraded the potential impact of his story as he maintained that "George Bush was destined to be re-elected pretty much whatever happened in August and September," described Thornburgh as someone who "was in the Nixon administration, says the Bushes are good friends of his, both President one and two Bush," crowed about how the panel found the story "was not motivated by political bias, and they said that, although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic," resurrected his charge that those who attacked CBS over the story had "their own political motivations and agendas" and contended how, unlike in the Jayson Blair case at the New York Times, at CBS News "nobody lied."

Rather got three segments on the March 3 Late Show, and early this morning the MRC's Brad Wilmouth painstakingly corrected the closed-captioning against our DVR of the show, so the accurate transcript below of most of the second segment is unique to CyberAlert and the MRC:

Letterman: "Now, some time before the election on, I believe it was 60 Minutes Wednesday, is what it's called now, there was the report that CBS had in their hands documents, some sort of affidavits that indicated that during his service in the National Guard, George Bush was given preferential treatment. Is that so far what happened?"
Rather: "That's true. And we had other people, including the one-time Speaker of the Texas house saying that he intervened to get special treatment, but basically that's true."
Letterman: "Yeah, now, just taking that story in and of itself, would that have been a damaging story? Was it a damaging story? Is it, I mean, would it have caused people to change their votes? How big a story would that have been if, in fact, it had been verified?"
Rather: "I don't know because we never reached that point. We put it on the air with what we thought was credibility. We had things besides the documents, but for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, the focus became the documents. We were not able to authenticate the documents as thoroughly as I think we should have. Given a little more time, perhaps we could have. My experience with elections is no one thing turns events around. I think that in this case, in this particular election, whatever was going to happen, let me say, below the surface, that the American people were going to be very reluctant to turn out a President as Commander-in-Chief in wartime until and unless it was demonstrated to them that the war was unwinnable, which was not the case. So, bottom line is, I think that George Bush was destined to be re-elected pretty much whatever happened in August and September."
Letterman: "But regarding that particular story, it was you and everybody else at CBS News felt that it was important to get that story on the air, right?"
Rather: "We did."
Letterman challenged Rather a bit: "Yeah. But isn't it true that in all walks of life some people are going to, I mean, in college, for example, I was given passing grades that I could never have driven to, you know what I'm saying?"
Rather: "I do. I made some of those grades."
Letterman: "That's preferential treatment. And if somebody wanted to do a story about that, okay, you know, I guess that did happen. So I'm trying to separate the two events. How big a story would that have been, and you're saying probably not to the extent of affecting the election. Now, the credibility, the veracity of the documents comes into question and then what happens?"
Rather: "Well, a panel was appointed by CBS News to look into this-"
Letterman: "An independent panel?"
Rather: "An independent panel."
Letterman: "Is this a big thing for a network news organization to have endured?"
Rather: "I think the answer to that is yes, yes. And Richard Thornburgh, former attorney general who was in the Nixon administration, says the Bushes are good friends of his, both President one and two Bush. He headed the panel. They took the better part of four months, they spent several million dollars, some people say as much as $5 million, and came out with a report which I've read, thought about, absorbed it, take it seriously, move on and carry it with me into my work. Among the things, they concluded a lot of things, and many of them not complementary about our work. They concluded that whatever happened, whatever you thought about it, it was not motivated by political bias, and they said that, although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic, that they were forgeries. They said they couldn't make that conclusion. They also encouraged CBS News to rededicate itself to aggressive investigative reporting when warranted and not let this discourage them from doing so. That's a summary, it's a short summary. This panel report is big enough, you know, if you want to read it, it's, I don't know, is big enough to make a door stop."
Letterman: "I need a door stop. So let me go back to these two points. They said, one, that it was not motivated by political bias?"
Rather: "That's right."
Letterman: "So CBS News and yourself and others cleared of that, and that seemed to be a great point of criticism, did it not, that there was political bias here, that-"
Rather: "Well, there were people with their own political motivations and agendas, and some people who didn't have that, who were asking the question. That's one reason the panel was appointed. That was one of their conclusions."
Letterman pushed Rather's line about no bias and how the documents were not forgeries: "But that charge has been erased by the committee, the fact-finding committee?"
Rather: "That was their conclusion."
Letterman: "That did not exist. That evaporated. And secondly, they could not prove that the documents were false. They could not prove that they were true and accurate, but they also could not prove that they were false."
Rather: "That's correct."
Letterman: "So that's a push right there."
Rather: "Well, some people would not regard it, but you've summarized it correctly. They had a lot of other findings, but those were among the findings."
Letterman seem befuddled: "So with that in mind, and it seems to me like those were certainly the fire points of this investigation, why then were there people let go? Why was it recommended that people be fired?"
Rather: "Well, because Les Moonves, who heads CBS, read the panel report. He had some tough decisions to make. And he said that it was his conclusion that on the basis of the panel's report and finding that four people, and I hope it won't be lost sight of that these are four people who worked hard for CBS News and Les Moonves acknowledged that, and in some cases they helped us break one of the most important stories in recent years, the Abu Ghraib story, but it was his judgment that he needed to do this for the good of the organization, for the good of CBS News, and that's a decision he made."
Letterman: "But I still don't understand, if the committee investigating this cleared people of the most weighty issues, the political motivation did not exist and the fact that we couldn't determine that these documents were fraud, why did anybody have to lose a job? Why isn't this just, as they say in racing, just one of them racing deals?"
[audience laughter]
Rather: "The committee didn't say it was just one of those racing deals. Well, first of all, we've summarized the committee findings and summarized what I think are some of the most important, but the panel was critical, in some cases very critical, of the way the story was handled. But again, Les Moonves had some difficult decisions to make. He read the report, thought about it. He had it well ahead of time, he had it a week or eight days ahead of time, thought about it. And, you know, he had difficult decisions to make, and he made them, gave his reasons for making them. You come back to it, well, you know, since these were two of the most important findings, I think the best answer, I'm not answering for Les Moonves, you have that close endearing relationship with him. [Letterman laughs] Some of the rest of us are somewhat more removed. That there were other findings of the committee, of the panel on which Les just looked at it and said I think I need to make this move."
Letterman: "Did you agree with his decisions for the dismissals?"
Rather: "Whether I agree with it or not doesn't matter. It was his decision to make. He made 'em. I respect that he had some tough choices to make. And that's where I have to leave it."
Letterman: "Were you sorry that these people were let go or did leave? I guess some quit, some were let go, right?"
Rather: "There were four, and three were asked to resign and one was let go at the end of her contract. The fact that a process, perhaps a necessary process resulted in four friends, colleagues, people who give in good work had to be let go is never very far from my mind."
Letterman: "And in a situation like this, it was so public, right or wrong, left or right, people early on make up their minds about it, such a high-profile story and such a great journalistic institution, should the President of CBS News have stepped down? Should he have stepped forward and taken the bullet and stepped down?"
Rather: "He's on vacation right now, but when he gets back, you can ask him."
[audience laughter]
Letterman: "Do you think that all of this has been handled fairly? Do you think it was too much about something that was later disproved or that evaporated? Or how do you feel about the proceedings after the fact?"
Rather: "Dave, this is exactly how I feel: It's behind us. We have to look forward. At some point, you know, you've had ups and downs in your career. You had criticisms. Sometimes you think it's justified and sometimes not. But at a certain point you have to say, the committee, the panel has spoken. The corporate leadership has spoken. This is how it is. Put a period. I take it with me and let's go forward in the work. That's exactly how I feel about it."
Letterman raised the Jayson Blair case: "I mean, if you take a look at the New York Times, a few years ago and for quite a lengthy period of time, it looked like that newspaper was falling apart. All they had left was the classifieds pretty much. [audience laughter] I mean, it was one thing after another, guys making up stories and phony headlines and on and on and on, but yet still I think it's regarded as the finest newspaper in the country. So you do, you have to accept and make changes and continue and that's what you and the network are doing."
Rather: "I agree with that completely, but I would want to point out something that is unquestionably true, and that is in the case of the Times, somebody, a particular somebody, had lied for a very long time, and it lasted over a long period of time. In the case, whatever one thinks of what we did or didn't do with the story in question here, nobody broke the law, nobody lied. Depending on your point of view, it was a mistake, and who hasn't made a mistake somewhere along the line? So there's that difference. But I think the Times handled their situation very well, and I agree with you that they're probably the world's greatest newspaper."

The Late Show Web site has a RealPlayer clip of a portion of the Letterman-Rather session. You'll see it on the "Dave TV" page: www.cbs.com [8]

For the MRC's compilation of CyberAlert coverage of memogate: www.mediaresearch.org [9]

As Dan Rather's last night as anchor approaches (March 9), check out "Countdown to Dan's Departure: MRC's Documentation of Rather's Record of Liberal Bias."

The MRC has posted two resources for those interested in quotes and reporting which demonstrate Dan Rather's liberal record:

-- "Dan Rather's Legacy of Outrageous Liberal Bias," a special four-page Notable Quotables, put together by the MRC's Rich Noyes, with more than 45 quotes from Rather's career. Four of the quotes are accompanied by RealPlayer video clips. Go to: www.mediaresearch.org [10]

For the Adobe Acrobat PDF which matches the printed version: www.mediaresearch.org [11]

-- "The Dan Rather File," an exhaustive library of more than 200 quotes and 15 video clips documenting the slanted approach that typified Rather's career. The special Web section provides a breakdown of quotes by year and into 28 topic categories. The MRC's Michael Chapman also added links to our "Dan's Downfall: Forged Documents" collection, and collated a list of Rather's "Corny in Kansas' Rather-isms" and "Rather Lame Denials of Bias." Plus, the special Rather section features links to past "Worst of the Week" reports, as well as "Media Reality Checks" and "CyberAlert" articles dealing with Rather's bias.

For the home page of "The Dan Rather File," go to: www.mediaresearch.org [12]

Re-Welcome to the New CyberAlert and
Our Two New Versions

Re-Welcome to the new CyberAlert. We launched our new versions on Thursday, but ran into a snafu with excessively wide pages in our new HTML and table of contents versions. That should be corrected with today's edition. Those who are reading this via e-mail have successfully joined one of the lists for one of the three versions of CyberAlert now available: HTML, table of contents or plain text. If you don't like the version you picked, follow the instructions in this item below on how to switch to a different version. HTML and table of contents subscribers can click on the headline over this text block. Plus, we welcome your feedback on how our formats look and work.

If you don't like the version of CyberAlert you have chosen, here's how to switch to a different edition: Use the link at the very bottom of this e-mail to unsubscribe, then go to this page and subscribe to a different edition: www.mediaresearch.org [13]

Please allow a couple of minutes for the unsubscribe to process through before subscribing to a different version and be sure to reply to the confirmation e-mail.

You can only have one subscription per e-mail address. So if you wish get more than one version, subscribe via a different e-mail addresses.

As a reminder, here are descriptions of each of the three version options:

-- The new "HTML" edition will provide the ability to click on a table of contents listing to jump down to that the article below. This edition will largely match the look of the current posted version. In addition to the "jump down" links in blue, the HTML edition will have graphics of the CyberAlert, MRC and donation logos. The file size of this version will be about twice as large as the current text version, but the HTML e-mail will be wholly contained within itself. That is, once you download the e-mail via a POP account you have it all -- opening the e-mail will NOT cause it to try to access the Web to download graphic files.

-- The new "Table of Contents Edition" will deliver only the table of contents, the summary paragraphs for each CyberAlert item. Clicking on a table of contents heading will bring you to the posted version ONLINE. So you will have to be online to read anything beyond the table of contents, but this edition will provide a shorter version for those who want a quick rundown and only occasionally want to read more or prefer to read the online version with its accompanying pictures. This edition's file size is about half that of the current text version and one-fourth that of the HTML edition.

-- The "Plain Text" version, which will match what you have received until today's switch to the new system.

# We spent a lot of time testing the new service on various configurations, but that doesn't mean the HTML and table of contents versions will work for everyone.

If you have a problem with what you get, please tell us the type of e-mail reading software you are using and the name of your Internet service provider.

If you are frustrated by the subscription process and have been unable to successfully subscribe, and thus are reading this online, be sure to tell us which version of CyberAlert you wish to receive (HTML, table of contents or plain text) so that we can manually add you, though you will still need to reply to the confirmation e-mail.

Address comments, questions and problems to: cybercomment@mrc.org [14]

-- Brent Baker [15]