Upshot: All legitimate sources indicate that there is no push to bring back the draft, and in fact the only bills purporting to do the same are sponsored by democrats wanting to make people take a more personal interest in the Iraq war. The bills can go nowhere, lacking even the support of their sponsors. Check out my earlier links for more on this issue. There were advertisements in 2001 for positions on draft boards, but as the Urban Legend Reference Pages site points out, that was because most of the draft board reps' 20-year terms were up in 1999 and they were having trouble filling those already-existing positions.
Having researched the issue, I posed the question whether the scare e-mails that have been circulating will help or hurt Kerry: democrats such as Tom Harkin are obviously bringing up a non-issue as a form of scare tactic in order to support the Kerry campaign, as shown in yet another news story today. But I'm wondering if it could backfire if the target does basic research and figures out the whole thing is another baseless conspiracy theory. An interesting question making for a decent debate in the comments.
The new twist? More reputational suicide on the part of the idiots at CBS. Yep, the same folks who brought you the forged - memo - scandal courtesy of Dan Rather.
"What worries the Coccos is the continuing need for more troops in dangerous places. And the machinery for a draft is already in place: all men have to register when they turn 18. Beverly Cocco is so concerned that she and ten of her friends formed a group called Parents Against the Draft, which is loosely affiliated with People Against the Draft.
The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly.
"I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call," says Selective Service Director Jack Martin.
This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up.
There hasn't been a draft since 1973, but that's not much comfort to Beverly Cocco.
So she is keeping a sharp eye on the political traffic. She's a Bush supporter today, but if she doesn't like what she hears between now and November, she could easily cross over."
Keep in mind, there is no issue here. CBS knows that the draft bills are dead and not even being pushed even by their sponsors. They know that there are no plans by either party to reinstate the draft, despite the democratic bills to do so - bills drafted solely to call attention in opposition of the war. Yet instead of reassuring voters that the issue is indeed dead, they emphasize the uncertainty of the situation as if it were a live, looming concern - and that the fault lies with the Republican administration.
Their response when questioned on the wisdom of this approach? By parroting their earlier "we stand by the accuracy of these memos" arrogance. INDC interviewed CBS and got this response:
INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."
Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."
Whether or not there's any reality to a story is almost beside the point???? Is that really how you want to say for posterity, under these circumstances? They seem determined to take on the "National Enquirer of Network News" label. All the gossip that's fit to print, regardless of accuracy. A stupid, stupid move if they want to retain any influence in this election, IMHO.
I don't think this is going to be as big as the memo scandal, because they didn't actually lie, only imply. They can claim to be giving voice to a concern in order to lay it to rest, when in fact they did the exact opposite. But aren't they supposed to be an unbiased, accurate news source?
They could also take the tactic of claiming to be a balance for Fox News, presenting the democratic slant where Fox provides the republican one.
But given the recent memo debacle, you'd think they'd want to be a bit more careful with their stance when the facts are brought to light.
A January 2004 survey showed these numbers:
"Internet news sources posted the largest relative gain, as 13 percent of those surveyed said they regularly went online for campaign news and another 20 percent saying they did so occasionally."
In September, there was a survey of adults 18-34, that showed:
"Of the young adults polled, 44 percent chose television as their top news source, 21 percent said the Internet and 20 percent picked newspapers. But newspapers retain their competitive value as the place for context, background and depth, Abbott said."
Given this, how can CBS fail to change their news model to reflect the increased need for accuracy sparked by blog factchecking? Do they really not see the handwriting on the wall?
They ate crow in public, yet now seem determined to have buzzard for dessert.
Hat tip: Salieri, the Patron Saint of Mediocrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment