Hugh Hewitt has issued a challenge of sorts to CBS to send drafts of their Rathergate report to a group of bloggers in advance of its release. Like others, I doubt the network will do that, though I certainly agree with Hugh that the report will be one of the most thoroughly vetted documents of all time by bloggers. And I am obviously curious about the results.
But at least equally significant will be the response of The New York Times. That paper, as most know, had its own scandal not long ago and reacted relatively swiftly, giving not only the offending reporter Jayson Blair the sack, but also his superior, Managing Editor Howell Raines. CBS has not behaved in a similar manner. No heads, to our knowledge, have rolled and, although an internal investigation was launched, the release of the results of the investigation have been delayed, giving the appearance of circled wagons.
Leaving aside the public relations stupidity of this on the part of CBS, it will be interesting to see how the Times reacts when the report finally surfaces. The Times has a long history of collaborations with the network, most recently around the Al Qaqaa kerfuffle when new managing editor Bill Keller apparently released the story early, a few days before the election. CBS had wanted to go for the throat on election eve without giving the Administration time to respond to what was at least in part a bogus or exaggerated story. Will the Times now fully vet the Rathergate report when it appears? Will they give it the full investigative treatment of which they are capable? Let’s hope so because, like or not, they still have much greater facilities for such of an investigation than we do. And much of the authority of the mainstream media still vests with them.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. Peter G.:“Will the Times now fully vet the Rathergate report when it appears? Will they give it the full investigative treatment of which they are capable?”
You’re kidding, right?
Agreed that the NY Times acted swiftly (and properly) re their own Jayson Blair affair. I would be pleasantly astonished if they fully vetted the Rathergate report. They’re already bedfellows with CBS, and there’s nothing strange about it.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:29 pm 2. Matt Evans:The Times will pretend the entire thing doesn’t exist. The past 2 years have evidenced the fact that the NY Times has no interest in being a balanceed or truthful publication. Considering the extent that the Times is in bed with the democratic party, this entire affair *should* reflect as poorly on them as it does on CBS.
However, like Roger, I must admit, I’m dying to know the contents. I suspect it will be mostly a flat denial – while we’re all hoping for truth, we should not expect it. Again, if there’s anything we’ve learned in 2 years, its that the mainstream media cannot be trusted.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:30 pm 3. Kyda Sylvester:I fear in this matter you’re destined to be disappointed in the Times yet again. On the brighter side, you used the word “kerfuffle” which will make James Taranto very happy.
Jan 6, 2005 - 7:35 pm 4. David C:Frankly, I doubt we’ll ever see the Rathergate report itself, unless it’s leaked somehow. I expect CBS will keep the actual report secret, and issue a one paragraph “summary” that obfuscates the report’s findings and recommendations. Nobody fired, no admissions of error.
Jan 6, 2005 - 7:58 pm 5. richard mcenroe:Does CBS really think this report will stay secret? Rather is not beloved, even with CBS News. If it’s not released, someone is guaranteed to leak it… or maybe we could nag Michael Powell over at the FCC into demanding a copy.
Jan 6, 2005 - 8:23 pm 6. Matt Evans:I concur with Richard. While the heads of CBS news are rabidly partisan, there’s bound to be somebody with access to the memo with a scintilla of journalistc integrity, who realizes that CBS can only recover if the memo is publicly disclosed and thorough fisked.
From a stategic standpoint, blaming rather for the entire affair is the only thing that would actually minimize scrutiny–contrary to what some folks are saying, I believe Rather was primarily responsible for running those memos and so it would make sense if they burn him to salvage CBS’s damaged rep.
Jan 7, 2005 - 4:34 am 7. Korla Pundit:We may never see the actual report, but we can see something even more frightening at CBS News headquarters:
Shocking proof that the ghost of Edward R. Murrow is for real!!!
Warning: Not for the weak of heart.
Jan 7, 2005 - 5:05 am 8. dougf:But at least equally significant will be the response of The New York Times—Roger
Why?
If the MSM has given itself over to a ‘propaganda’ mission rather than a ‘reporting’mandate(and they have),why is it important what the Times says or does not say.
This ‘acceptance’of media POWER,is part of the problem.Their POWER is becoming illegitimate through their abuse of it.Just ignore what the Times says except to deride them whem they become totally ridiculous(well I guess that would be daily),and proceed to build up the alternative information networks.
I don’t read the Times;I don’t read ANY of the MSM any longer;I refuse to watch network news,and CNN is basically a waste of time and effort.
Does that mean that I am a clueless and ignorant boob? Perhaps.But I tend to think it makes me a discriminating consumer of information.The situation now is not an examination of’objective’reality.We are witnessing a duel to the death between mutually exclusive realities,and one of these must prevail over the other since a synthesis between them cannot occur.I expect the Times to either ignore or gloss over CBS’s errors,but I frankly could not care less.When the MSM stops being partisan,then they become relevant again,and not a minute before.
Jan 7, 2005 - 6:03 am 9. Pat Curley:No offense, Roger, but this strikes me as wishful thinking. It’s not the New York Times that has changed, but your perception of it. The scales have fallen from your eyes. You keep hoping that they’ll get over this momentary madness, but the fact is that they were always like this.
The Times will devote one story to this, and one editorial, which will mostly say that the story was unfortunate in that it deflected attention from the real questions that remain yadda yadda yadda.
Jan 7, 2005 - 6:42 am 10. John Lynch:The “Shocking Proof” cited by Korla Pundit (above) seems to have a familiar image (see Roger’s image from the home page.)
This ghostly image is on Korla’s own site.
Are you looking to get traffic Korla, or is there some purpose?
Jan 7, 2005 - 6:45 am 11. Jim in Texas:I suspect it will be a bit like Tom Lehrer’s famous disclosure.
paraphrased;
“If anything I say offends anyone not only will I apologize, but I will swear under oath I never said it in the first place”
Jan 7, 2005 - 6:48 am 12. Terrye:I think CBS will say it was all true and Dan Rahter will get the Edward Murrow award.
If CBS admits wrongdoing of any kind I will be amazed, and if the NYT gives an honest appraisal I will be even more amazed.
They are all liars.
Jan 7, 2005 - 7:35 am 13. Silicon valley Jim:But at least equally significant will be the response of The New York Times—Roger
Why?
Because the Times has the third-largest (I think) circulation of any newspaper in the United States, behind only the Wall Street Journal, which is not really a general-interest newspaper, and USA Today, which is, let’s face it, not as serious a newspaper as the Times, although I don’t hold USA Today in the contempt in which the chattering classes do. (Also, neither of them publishes on week-ends). Because the Times has the largest circulation in our nation’s largest city. Because it’s the newspaper about which all of us conservatives talk.
I’ve despised it for about thirty years, but I don’t think that there can be much doubt that it’s America’s most influential newspaper. Like it or not, its editorial and op-ed pages have a huge effect on the thinking of people whose thoughts and actions affect all the rest of us greatly.
Jan 7, 2005 - 7:48 am 14. Korla Pundit:>Are you looking to get traffic Korla, or is there some purpose?
Just having some harmless fun with Dan. But it’s also in tribute to the bloggers who have made a difference in applying some accountability to the media, which is something they’ve never had to deal with before.
Jan 7, 2005 - 10:32 am 15. Terrye:So far nothing.
I wonder if they will drag this out?
Jan 7, 2005 - 12:43 pm 16. richard mcenroe:Jim Geraghty over at National Review Online is speculating that they won’t release the report while Dan is playing reporter in Asia…
Maybe if someone leaks it we can get him to defect. I’m sure North Korea would appreciate his worldview…
Jan 7, 2005 - 5:09 pm 17. Les Nessman:“Let’s hope so because, like or not, they still have much greater facilities for such of an investigation than we do.”
Do they? The blogosphere contains thousands and thousands of experts in every aspect of life. People with firsthand knowledge of fonts, military protocol, Kinko’s operations, mental health, office politics at CBS, slander lawsuits, et cetera ad infinitum. The NYT has senior editors who will be loathe to embarrass ‘their guys’.
If the NYT has greater investigative facilities, they won’t for long as the blogosphere grows.
Jan 7, 2005 - 6:01 pm 18. David:It seems odd that the Times might cover up CBS’s misdeeds, when they were so open about their own Jason Blair and Judith Miller. Nevertheless, unlike WaPo, they have gone no farther than CBS so far. Those who depend on the Times for their news still think it’s uncertain whether the documents were forged. Sadly, I expect the Times to support the final report, even if it’s a whitewash.
Perhaps one reason is that the CBS’s errors involved unfair attacks on Republicans. The Times errors to which they confessed were not of that type.
Jan 8, 2005 - 6:46 am