Well, the long-awaited CBS internal report on Rathergate is out, at least an extensive article on same is up on the network’s site. It seems at first glance pretty thorough. Heads (from Senior Vice President Betsy West to zealot producer Mary Mapes) have rolled. But the buck, as it always does, stopped somewhere, in this case at Ms. West, sparing CBS News’ president:
The panel believes a turning point came on Sept. 10, when CBS News President Andrew Heyward ordered Betsy West to review the opinions of document examiners who had seen the disputed documents and the confidential sources supporting the story.
But no such investigation was undertaken.
“Had this directive been followed promptly, the panel does not believe that 60 Minutes Wednesday would have publicly defended the segment for another 10 days,” the report said.
We’ll see if this holds up.
UPATE: This is the complete report. Have at it.
MORE: Of interest, I think, is that, as of 9AM, Google News contains no reference to the CBS internal investigation on their front page, which references such “important” things as a football player “mooning” Packers fans after a touchdown. The NYT, however, runs it high on its front page, linking this AP story.
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.
23 Comments
1. richard mcenroe:So CBS is claiming the president of the division ordered a subordinate to conduct an investigation and the subordinate just blew it off? Is that the story they want to stick with?
Sound like Andy’s been typing a few memos of his own, suitably backdated…
Jan 10, 2005 - 7:39 am 2. Ray:Rather still claims that the story is “essentially” true. Like Arafat, “stable condition, but dead”. When will CBS acknowledge that Rather has been pursuing a vendetta against the Bush family and proclaim Rather “essentially” fired.
Jan 10, 2005 - 8:10 am 3. ambisinistral:Starting at page 45 of the report is the description of Mape’s investigation, starting in 1999, or the notion that Bush got preferrential treatment. Quite interesting.
Jan 10, 2005 - 8:59 am 4. ambisinistral:Starting, page 57
In mid-June, Smith e-mailed Mapes and indicated that he was working on a documentary for a German television network regarding the Bush family and that he had a ìtasty brisketî of information. It is not clear what Smith meant. At the end of June, Smith asked Mapes whether she was ìseriousî about pursuing the TexANG story. Mapes responded:
I am DEADLY serious about it. I have two other people working with me, looking at various aspects of the story, trying to find an opening. Barnes is on board, as on board as he can be anyway. I expect him to do it. The piece (if I get it) will run in early September. I need all the help I can get. Just tell me what youíve got.
Mapes was targeting the beginning of the new 60 Minutes Wednesday season in September for broadcast of a story. 60 Minutes Wednesday generally does not air new shows between June and September but instead airs reruns.
———————————————-
The most interesting part so far. This is before Burkett produced the forged document. Mapes already has two reporters following the ho-hum story about Bush receiving favoritism. Above she was talking to a free-lancer and already intending to run some sort of a story in September. Throughout this time she is fishing for any story she can get.
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:31 am 5. Rick Ballard:“The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the
Killian documents.” Pg 18
Really? Does this mean that the Panel has found a vintage early 70’s typewriter capable of reproducing the documents? Does it mean that they’ve found that TANG memos were typically produced using typesetting or composing machines? Or does it mean that they are incapable of exercising the level of judgement that one might expect in a class of 4th graders?
We aren’t dealing with runes, hieroglyphs or a dead language. Nor papyrus fragments nor Sumerian cuneiform.
I’ll read on but I’m afraid that I will be unable to reach any conclusion other than that this report is an utter failure. If this panel can’t come to grips with the obvious, of what value is it?
SeeBS to the end.
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:43 am 6. Les Nessman:Well, Amb, in light of that info I can see why the CBS internal ‘investigators’found no evidence of political motivation in running this story (snort). They just wanted to break a big news story sooo bad that they got sloppy, is all. I guess the MSM has sloppy, jump-the-gun high-profile stories about Kerry too, then. /sarcasm off
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:47 am 7. David C:Nah, I think they’re just being extremely “lawyerly” in their conclusions. The report lays out the facts clearly enough, which is the most important thing, and the real-world conclusions that can be drawn from that are pretty clear. It’s especially striking on the “bias” issue. Sure, they say there’s no conclusive proof to establish it as a motivation or whatever the exact wording was. But when you read the blow-by-blow account, it’s really difficult to come up with any alternative explanation. What, they were just really, really, really worried about being scooped by Dateline NBC or something?
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:49 am 8. thibaud:Will that TANG Colonel (Staudt?) sue CBS for defamation? Seems like this report has given him all the ammo his lawyers need.
Or did they settle it quietly and force him to accept a no-disclosure, no-publicity clause? Perhaps the settlement negotiations delayed the report.
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:53 am 9. Jeff:Wired 12/04 dead tree edition page 86 had a sidebar interview with Krishna Bharat chief scientist with google news who basically defended google news content as the work of computer alogrithms and claiming it to be the best way to aggregate news. He might want to see how slow the bots were this morning and reevaluate.
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:53 am 10. Jeff:Heres the link to the Wired interview
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/view.html?pg=3
Sorry I don’t know how to hyperlink it.
Jan 10, 2005 - 9:58 am 11. thibaud:Mapes emails, Barnes is on board, as on board as he can be anyway
WTF? Barnes is a Democratic operative, is he not? Am I mistaken here, or is an MSM news producer here
1) describing the enthusiastic participation by a partisan operative during an election campaign in a journalist’s investigative reporting exercise? and
2) admitting (”as on board as he can be anyway”) that she knows this violates all ethical and commonsense standards of integrity?
I hope I’m wrong, but if not, this is pretty damning evidence in support of the rebuttal to the notion that the MSM can be trusted to pursue objective news reporting.
Jan 10, 2005 - 10:00 am 12. ambisinistral:Although not stated overtly, it is pretty clear there was a political bias in the investigation. The email talking about information that could “change the momentum” of the election even though not from Mapes is pretty telling.
I haven’t read the whole report yet, but I do suspect there is some material to be mined in the possible payments to Burkett for the forgeries — book deals and contacts with the Kerry campaign. So far, in the report, that aspect has been papered over with everybody remembering something different.
Jan 10, 2005 - 10:02 am 13. thibaud:Google’s bots are asinine. They merely amplify noise, when the goal is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Google’s approach is precisely wrong. It’s not algorithms but trust that is the prized resource, and that is precisely what bloggers have and what no software program can hope to match.
Jan 10, 2005 - 10:03 am 14. Yehudit:One aspect I have not seen discussed is how much trouble and time Mapes spent on what is a pretty ho-hum story. I mean, so Bush pulled strings to get into the TANG – SO WHAT?
I know Bush didn’t, but what if he did? SO WHAT? Many sons of privilege did the same (including Dems), and he never ran on his TANG record. (She started way before Kerry appeared on the scene, so it wasn’t tit for tat for the Swift Vets, although it ended up serving that function.) You spend 5 years employing dubious tactics which could destroy your professional reputation for THAT? If you’re going to go to that kind of trouble and risk, why not aim for “in bed with a dead girl or a live boy,” as the saying goes?
This isn’t just dishonest and unprofessional, it’s DUMB.
Roger, if I read this in one of your novels I would say that the characterization was weak and the plot line just doesn’t ring true.
Jan 10, 2005 - 10:57 am 15. Rick Ballard:“In particular, the producer, Mary Mapes, had
fervent faith in what she was reporting and the correspondent, Dan Rather, had great confidence
in Mapesí work.” Pg 221
Well, that’s OK then. Rather’s confidence in Abu Hersch Mapes is certainly understandable. The provenace and reliability of sacred texts really should be left in the hands of the faithful and who among us has the standing to declare such a bastion of Democratic faith as CBS to be resting on a foundation of sand?
This report is not a whitewash and semi-tough measures were suggested and accepted by CBS. I am content that the rot at the heart of the matter has not been addressed. As the decomposition of CBS and the NYT continues, live media will continue to grow and it is quite possible that the corpses will return nutrients to the environment as they rot and that those nutrients will aid growth in live media. It’s really not a bad outcome.
Jan 10, 2005 - 11:05 am 16. Rhod:I suppose those of us waiting for the out-of-a-job, about-to-board-the-limo moment, with Rather’s arms raised and fingers configured in a “V”, his face drawn and empty from being found out…will have to wait forever. The firings sterilized the bugs running all over Dan Rather and left him clean.
If you dig around deep enough in Rather, though, you find that he’s very Nixonian. Maybe there is something Freudian in all this, or Horneyian or Adlerian (which one?), with Rather’s hatred for Nixon being a projection of his distaste and rejection of himself.
He remains untarnished, but is really a despicable person.
Jan 10, 2005 - 11:11 am 17. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):I don’t have time to read the report, but I did find the follow quote telling (emphasis mine):
The combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network’s news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles,”
Given that the MSM and CBS were clearly out to hurt Bush, I suspect that “zealous belief” was driven by a political bias.
As an example of CBS tactics and bias, CBS evening news had a segment that was classic propaganda – against the Swiftie messengers.
Excerpt (emphasis added):
PITTS: For nearly an hour, this group, called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, unleashed decades of bitterness, attacking Kerry’s service record and his anti-war testimony before Congress, which they say painted them all as war criminals.
Unidentified Man #2: I’m here today to express the anger I’ve harbored for over 33 years about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.
PITTS: But if you think this is just a group of concerned veterans, think again. Some of the organizers have a track record of going after Democrats and Republican opponents of President Bush.
Mr. JOHN O’NEILL (Vietnam Veteran): We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the commander in chief.
….
PITTS: John O’Neill. He debated Kerry about Vietnam on “The Dick Cavett Show” in 1971. Back then, he was handpicked by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry.
The press conference was set up by the same people who tried to discredit John McCain’s reputation in Vietnam service when McCain faced George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000. It’s the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam.
Notice the guilt by association, the “bitterness,” etc, the use of the great villain, Nixon, and the hero McCain.
The statement about Nixon implies that O’Neil was chosen and turned into an anti-Kerry person, when in fact O’Neil was discovered because he was already publicly speaking out against Kerry.
The last paragraph of the excerpt is highly misleading.
And then:
Mr. WADE SANDERS (Vietnam Veteran): It smells like another dirty trick from the Bush-Cheney machine.
PITTS: Vietnam; politicized then, politicized now. Byron Pitts, CBS News, Washington.
This is your MSM at work.
For more information on the press conference, see this insider account – especially the penultimate paragraph.
This is CBS practicing the kind of journalism it is proud of. This was not a commentary or hit show like 60 minutes, but the primary news show. This is well crafted propaganda, and nothing else. H
as anyone heard about an investigation of it? Hardly, because it is almost completely true – it was simply the selection of information to be presented and left out, the language used and the use of facts as implications that makes it propaganda.
The O’Neil is a Nixon stooge implication lasted to this day.
Thanks CBS! It’s a good thing that John O’Neil is a tough and honorable man. He fought over 12 months in Vietnam – CBS is small potatos in comparison.
Jan 10, 2005 - 11:14 am 18. ambisinistral:From page 104:
Heyward recalled speaking to Rather on Monday, September 6, and being told that the story was thoroughly vetted. Heyward also told the Panel that Rather said he had not “been involved in this much checking on a story since Watergate.” Heyward also said that Rather commented, “This isn’t as big as Abu Ghraib, but it’s very big, and you should probably look at it before it goes to air.”
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
Jan 10, 2005 - 11:26 am 19. Terrye:John:
Well according to my brother everything from the evils of communism to the war on Terror are just examples of right wing propaganda. To him a report like that would sound about right.
I don’t know what happened to my little brother, he was not always so silly.
Jan 10, 2005 - 12:51 pm 20. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Terry,
My sympathies. Almost all of my in-laws are in the same boat.
Jan 10, 2005 - 1:19 pm 21. Terrye:John:
I finally told him he was full of…. well you know.
I tried my best to avoid even talking about this with him. One of the reasons I come here is so that I will not feel inclined to talk politics with my ill informed and paranoid brother, but he was in a mood and so he picked a fight and it was not pretty.
Damn… he is my only brother. This stuff should not come between people like that.
Jan 10, 2005 - 1:58 pm 22. richard mcenroe:Terrye — I’m in the same boat with my youngest brother/godson as well as many of my friends. But you know what? If they want to have their opinions treated as the opinions of grownups then it’s time they started acting like grownups and stop throwing tantrums whenever someone disagrees with them.
Jan 10, 2005 - 5:22 pm 23. Neo:Read this report for what it is, not for what it isn’t.
It seems that too many thought that Thornburgh and Boccari were appointed Special Counsel or Independent Consel in the mold of Cox and/or Starr.
This is not the report of a criminal prosecutor, Indpendent Counsel or Speical Prosecutor as it is obvious that no determination of criminality is attempted. It is also obvious that no attempt was made to get to the truth of the news segment in question.
Rather, this report is an analysis, using the facts at hand, to determine if CBS employees of Sixty Minutes II followed corporate policy when reporting on Bush’s Air National Guard service. As such, no investigation outside of interviewing CBS employees was necessary.
Those searching for the truth of the news segment or for prosecution of criminal acts have their hopes and anger improperly directed. They should look to Congress or the AG-s of NY, TX and/or the USA.
Any attempt to attribute the report with truth telling will be futile.
Jan 11, 2005 - 11:41 am