I think there's some confusion. CBS was showing a clip of him from an interview on PBS, so I think PBS, not CBS, would have to be the ones to release the full transcript. Therefore, I think the charge that CBS is covering up by not releasing the full transcript is not apt.

Although of course that doesn't take away from what CBS did. It is just as outrageous as ever that they apparently took a quote completely out of context and said Starr was talking about one thing when he was talking about something else.

And I will not be surprised at all if CBS does try to cover this up as much as possible. I'm just saying that not releasing the full transcript isn't a CBS coverup since the quote's from a PBS show.

OK, I just looked at some other sites, and they're all acting as if this is a strictly CBS issue. So I looked back at the Rush Limbaugh site and was a little concerned to see there is no reference to PBS there at all. Had I hallucinated this?

No. Starr says this:

"I have now seen the CBS report. Attached is an exchange with Steve Engle, who alerted me earlier today to the other dimensions of the wild misconstruction of what I said in the Gloria Borger interview.

Note that the "Gloria Borger" link takes you to a description of her show, which is on PBS.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but it looks to me like her show is on PBS, and Starr is angry that CBS took a clip from her show and misrepresented what he was talking about. If this is correct, then all the blogs talking about CBS withholding the transcript are mistaken.

And if Gloria Borger also has a CBS show, then I'm mistaken...

Gloria Borger is affiliated with CBS.

Hmmm, looks like I'm a moron:

Gloria Borger "Going Home" To CBS. Yes, this is a story from earlier this year about her return to CBS. Apparently Rush's site linked to the PBS page just because it has a description of her there.

Oh well, never mind. Sorry.

Bob, by admitting your error, you just showed WAY more integrity than CBS ever will. :)

Later,
bbeck

Kausfiles has the transcript of what CBS aired and links to the clip. He is somewhat critical of Limbaugh's take on it, although still seems to me obvious hanky panky on CBS' part, at least w/r/t 'radical departure' part of Starr's interview.

bbeck,

that's just the kinda kick he's on

Bob, your clarity is as noteworthy as your honesty. Either CBS or the NY Times should hire you as their restructuring executive immediately.

Just read through the Kaus piece. He doesn't seem to give a compelling reason why we shouldn't take Starr's claims at face value.

I may not be the best person to analyze Kaus, as I can't stand his blog.

If nothing else, though, the Borger report is yet another damn example of how the media likes Republicans, but only when they disagree with other Republicans.

I mean, look at the respectful treatment Starr's opinions (if that's what he actually said) are being given in the major media - the same f'in media that savaged him during the Clinton administration.

It's so f'in transparent.

If nothing else, though, the Borger report is yet another damn example of how the media likes Republicans, but only when they disagree with other Republicans.

I mean, look at the respectful treatment Starr's opinions (if that's what he actually said) are being given in the major media - the same f'in media that savaged him during the Clinton administration.

It's so blasted transparent.

Sorry for the double post. I realized just as I hit post that I'd already used the phrase "f'in" in that post. Oh, well...I guess this story makes me angry enough to justify the double use.

Starr's a nice guy. Humble, quiet, and I think with a lot of integrity. I met him a few years back at a federalist society meeting in DC @ Ted Olson's place. Just a mellow dude.

If he's saying he was misquoted, I'd believe it.

Kaus is way off here.

He looks at Starr's first quote and says:

Borger does wrench the first Starr sentence ("radical, radical") into something approximating the context Starr says it was given in...

Wrong. Look at how the CBS sneaks set it up.

That's why many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control.
Mr. KENNETH STARR (Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law): This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.

By specifically referring to the conservative fight over judges, CBS makes it appear as though Starr's proceeding negative quote is directed toward their position, not the Democrats.

Read it again. Look at the sentence structure. Any reader will conclude that the "it" Ken Starr thinks out of control is the "conservative fight" in the preceeding sentence because of the use of the word, "but" which indicates a contradictory statement.

If the author intended to represent Starr's statement as supportive of the Republican position, he could have done so by losing the word, "but," and restructuring the sentence like this:

That's why many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. Conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr agrees it's gotten out of control.

Uh, that was me in the above posting.

I'll bet CBS will do just what they did in Rathergate, stonewall and hope it'll go away, and I hate to say this: it might! This may not have the legs of Rathergate, so:

Unless we push hard like in Rathergate, CBS will win this one and be even worse!

I've met Ken Starr and I don't believe he would lie.

RE: Kausfiles. I don't think Kaus is wrong here, or that he's implying Starr isn't telling the truth. He's really only making the side point that Limbaugh's kinda got the story wrong.

CBS aired two Starr quotes. One, the stronger, uses 'radical, radical departure' language. The second, the one Kaus focuses on, mentions Starr's worry that removing the filibuster may have a 'boomerang effect' someday on republicans.

Kaus' point is that:
1. Limbaugh wrongly conjoins the two quotes ('radical departure' and 'boomerang') into one, and
2. Limbaugh is wrong to say this conjoined quote had nothing to do with concern over the 'nuclear option.' when it appears, and Starr seems to freely admit, the 'boomerang' portion does.

Yeah, Kaus is right, but so what? The way CBS used that 'radical, radical departure' snip was VERY misleading. I would certainly have thought Starr was referring to the 'nuclear option.' Even Scheiffer's heightened reaction only seems to make sense if Scheiffer believes that 'radical' talk was about the Republican efforts. The 'may boomerang' hardly raises any eyebrows.

(It is also hard to believe CBS' misrepresentation of the 'radical, radical' wasn't done knowingly. It was certainly the juicier of the quotes and Borger had to know what it really referred to. My guess is that CBS will be blame this on an inattentive editor, and maybe truthfully so. If not, if Borger did this intentionally, how do you not get fired over that?)

Second, so what if Limbaugh got it partially wrong? I heard bout it from Powerline and LGF. Kaus is concentrating on a side issue.

I just emailed this to CBS and PBS and US NEWS (Gloria Borger's magazine):

"Ken Starr says his comments were taken completely out of context and I believe him. I demand that CBS and PBS publicly release the tapes and transcripts of the Monday night Ken Starr interview with Gloria Borger. If you've nothing to hide, why not?

And don't think this will all just go away because it won't.

If you don't release the transcripts and tapes, this will be the next Rathergate, and bloggers like me will make sure of it!

Let's show 'em some conservative muscle hold 'em accountable!!!

MANUAL TRACKBACK:

http://intherightplace.blogspot.com/2005/05/breaking-news-see-bs-does-it-again-ken.html

72 - Should've been all bold:

"Ken Starr says his comments were taken completely out of context and I believe him. I demand that CBS and PBS publicly release the tapes and transcripts of the Monday night Ken Starr interview with Gloria Borger. If you've nothing to hide, why not?

And don't think this will all just go away because it won't.

If you don't release the transcripts and tapes, this will be the next Rathergate, and bloggers like me will make sure of it!

ACE - Your site would'nt let me bold two pps that were indicated as bold before posting. Thought you should know.

Perhaps I failed the "hot-air 'o meter" you have in the software.

What did we decide about Borger's interview? Was it on Ch. 13 (PBS) or Ch. 4 (CBS)? Should I call Ken Starr's office myself and ask him where I can find the interview?

Do I get to say "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

Sorry.

If CBS isnt allowed to spin and distort interviews they will lose their competitive advantage. Much like asking Wal Mart to disown their Just In Time logistics philosophy.

Maybe there's a comprimise here: Wal Mart goes to a Day Late philosophy and CBS will distort by using a 'fun house mirror' camera lens instead of splicing non-fiction into fiction. Just keep Frist away from the negotiations.

License Renewed? When was that?

Do you mean License to Kill? One of my faves of the Bond films.

Ted: it's a different movie. I don't think I've seen it either -- must rent this weekend, I guess. It's apparently not one of the half-dozen Spike plays over and over and over and over during their quote-unquote "marathons", which I watch anyway, but after the first two times through all their material I tend to tune them out, so to speak. Heh. Indeed.

Recently, I heard a very good one hour radio interview of Ken Starr by John Ziegler. Ziegler is not exactly big time radio, has an evening show, and is pretty sharp. Not sure how he got him to the studio. Starr makes a very favorible impression. Even the girl-producer who picked him up/drove him home commented the next day how he was so nice to her, as opposed to most guests treating her like shit.

Scroll down to 3/3 if you're interested in listening. LINK

Just for the sake of... oh, I don't know what, Kaus just went up with new post slamming into Limbaugh, arguing that Rush is misleading his audience when he claims Starr is for the nuclear option when a Nightline transcript of a recent Starr interview shows otherwise. Kaus, again, seems to be right.

But again, so what? The issue is did CBS take Starr's heated language bout Senators voting against qualified judges on judicial philosphy grounds - his 'radical, radical departure' words - and edit/twist such to make it seem he was using that language to describe the Republicans' 'Nuclear Option' efforts. THAT is the issue. Seems like if they knowingly did that, that's a very, very wrong thing for a person calling themselves a journalist to do.

Rush might be wrong, but why concentrate on Rush? Isn't the CBS thing the vastly 'wronger' thing? Why is Kaus saying CBS should come outta this looking OK? Kaus usually strikes me as a play it straight guy. He's actin kinda weird here.

Ken Starr takes a principled but useless stand against the Democrats' abuse of the filibuster, but also against any Republican attempt to do anything effective about it.

Thanks, Ken!

So -- does the 'boomerang' effect refer to the Democrat abuse or the Republican solution, or both? Kaus creates doubt, but that's all. The Nightline excerpt doesn't further the issue.

CBS misrepresented the first quote. I suspect that they carefully jigsawed the second in order to insert it into a misleading context - one that lays sole blame on the GOP. We need the unedited transcript.

Ok, one last thing (and yes, I know I'm yelling into my own echo on this lonely, dying thread ). Kaus now updates his later post, restating the point he thinks CBS was only selling the tame 2nd quote ('may boomerang') as a Starr comment on the nuclear option, thinking CBS never did so on the money quote - 'radical, radical departure and an assault on the judiciary.'

Bullshit. Kaus links to the video, transcript. It speaks for itself. I would certainly think the sexy quote was Starr referring to Republican 'nuclear' efforts. Who wouldn't. Schieffer seemed to think so too (or was his surprised tone the result of the notion Starr might think it could one day boomerang? C'mon. Any republican off the street shares that worry.) Finally, as Patterico points out, even the AP thought CBS was telling them Starr saw it as 'radical assault'

Lookit, someone got tempted. They wanted Starr to give them a nice anti 'nuke' quote, knowing he was against it somewhat. Then when they sat him down, the guy gives a lot of circumspect talkabout thats 1. Boring 2. Not gonna help 'The Cause.' What to do? WAIT A MINUTE! There's that 'radical, radical, assault' lingo, just sitting there. All alone. Lookin all sexy. Why who would even know...

CBS tried to pull something. Maybe, maybe an editor made an honest mistake. (Strongly doubt it.) But the line Kaus' is trying to sell, that CBS never implied.... BULLSHIT.

Re: "License Renewed"

Loose shit. The title comes from one of those bad later Bond books (which feature Bond as the geriatric oldster he really would be in reality, given he was an officer in WWII). License Renewed was the original working title of the Dalton movie, but the studio decided it wasn't sexy enough, and changed it to License to Kill.

Whoops. I've blocked out most of my memory of those horrid Dalton movies, except for the hot chick (Later on law & order) who was Dalton's love interest in LTK.

"Black & White & Full of Crap"

Lies Run Big, Facts Small in U.S. Media

One year ago the Bush regime's American media was pushing the Pat Tillman story with the heavy rotation normally reserved for living like Michael Jackson. Tillman, the former NFL player who turned down a multi-million dollar football contract to fight for Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a centerpiece of the right's Hitler/Hamas-style death cult when he lost his life in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan. To supporters of the wars and to many football fans, Tillman embodied ideals of self-sacrifice and post-9/11 butt-kicking in a hard-bodied shell of chisel-chinned masculinity on steroids....

It was also a lie.

As sharp-eyed readers learned a few months ago from single-paragraph articles buried deep inside their newspapers, Pat Tillman died pointlessly, a hapless victim of "friendly fire" who never got the chance to choose between bravery and cowardice. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Bush lapdog Washington Post now reports that Pentagon and White House officials knew the truth "within days" after his April 22, 2004 shooting by fellow Army Rangers but "decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after" the nationally televised martyr-a-thon.

It gets worse. So desperate were the military brass to carry off their propaganda coup that they lied to Tillman's brother, a fellow soldier who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident, about how he died. Writing in an army report, Brigadier General Gary Jones admits that the official cover-up even included "the destruction of evidence": the army burned Tillman's Ranger uniform and body armor to hide the fact that he had died in a hail of American bullets, fired by troops who had "lost situational awareness to the point they had no idea where they were."

"We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened," one soldier told Jones.

A perfect summary of the war on terrorism.

The Bush regime lied about Pat Tillman. And their lackeys in the right wing corporate media went along with it.

The Bush regime lied about Jessica Lynch. And the conservative-owned media happily helped sell the lie.

WMDs, Saddam and 9/11, the list goes on and on. The brownshirts in the White House brazenly lie to the American people and the cowardly conservative-owned media trumpets it to the heavens on page one. A few weeks later, when the lie is exposed, it's buried in the 18th paragraph of a news story on page D 29.

And STILL...every day I have to listen to or read some halfwitted asshole whine about the media and their "liberal bias."

Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe such an idiotic idea? Possibly this fucking stupid with a side order of dumbass.

"We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened," one soldier told Jones.

A perfect summary of the for-profit war on terrorism.

Hey, who needs to pay and maintain a blog when you can post the whole damn thing in ace's comment sections.

And STILL...every day I have to listen to or read some halfwitted asshole whine about the media and their "liberal bias."

No, you don't. No one put a gun to your head and made you come here and read it.

Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe such an idiotic idea? Possibly this fucking stupid with a side order of dumbass.

How fucking stupid are you to think any one wants to read your crap?

Any politician, or anyone else who is interviewed by the news media on controversial subjects, who does not take his own measures to record the interview is, in my opinion, an idiot.

What does a digital recorder cost these days?

Don Myers is whoring for hits. You'd think asshats like him would realize that nobody wants to visit a blog where the blogger has to spam other blogger's comments to get a couple hits on the ol' site meter. Its really quite pathetic.