I am mad as Hell and I am not taking it anymore.

or something like that. great movie.

It is an astonishing thing that Paddy Chayevsky seemed to clearly perceive that evening news “anchors” were already, in that era, a dying, rather ridiculous breed.

Jamie Irons

Which leaves for me the question of what in hell could CBS have been thinking about to release this silly load on us? I haven’t watched in years and still won’t, but this whitewash will surely hurt their already tanking ratings.

I would rather hear Thornburg’s answer to “What ethical/moral purpose or principle does your involvement in this report advance?” rather than “Why did you lie?” If he can’t give a decent answer to the purpose/principle question, then I would say that he no longer warrants a prestigious reputation.

Normally in the corporate sector when a company’s top management engages in massive misconduct, any review will accompany, at a minimum, a complete shakeup of senior management and an administration of harsh medicine. Business units are often folded or sold off; cooperation with prosecutors is welcomed. The goal is to completely cauterize the wound so as to allow the patient to recover. This is how Jack Welch of GE handled then-Prosecutor Giuliani’s investigation of GE’s Kidder Peabody financial unit.

But as we all know, CBS News is different. Even though their parent is a for-profit conglomerate no different from GE, the CBS News property is more than a business unit; it’s a national icon and a precious national treasure. So the harsh medicine that’s usually applied to a business unit and mgmt team that badly f*** up is not relevant here.

As with the Volcker commission, the overarching goal is to salvage the reputation of the iconic institution.

Not to fire anyone, and certainly not to assist in any prosecution or legal or congressional investigation. The question of whether the insitution’s leadership is so incompetent, corrupt or otherwise uncognizant of how its normal operating behavior runs afoul of its mission is not and never was on the table.

There’s no advantage to Bush or the Republicans in getting the FCC involved here. Michael Powell’s record in heading that organization is already badly tainted by his bizarre favoritism toward the big telco carriers, to the great detriment of broadband adoption and to the nation as a whole, so I don’t think the admin would want to touch this tarbaby. On top of which, CBS is melting down nicely as it is.

Seriously, is there anyone at Roger’s Place who has seen more than one CBS Nightly Newscast per week during the last year? Is there anyone under 40 in this country who has seen more than one CBS Nightly Newscast per month during the last year?

CBS News is about as vital and dynamic as Kmart. I think it likely that Viacom shareholders will either eliminate the anchor-as-god notion and the huge expense items associated with it or else sell the unit to the highest bidder. Probably to a middle-of-the road, apolitical entertainment company. Someone involved in theme parks, kids’ entertainment, video rentals, that sort of thing.

Wayne Huizenga’s a wholesome fellow. Maybe he’ll snap up CBS, and recycle old 60 Minutes episodes and Cronkite and Murrow broadcasts on DVD through his Blockbuster outlets. Bring the old folks into the stores! Leverage the channel to reach a new demographic.

Thank you for correcting me wrt the canon of ethics. I erroneously applied my understanding of a duty to perform having to do with defense to a non-judicial matter. I would suggest, though, that by not reaching a conclusion that would be obvious to most 10 year olds he has tarnished his prestigious reputation as well as that of his profession. He’s a former AG and he has done all attorneys a disservice with this report.

I rue the legal profession’s current reputation.

Carl, I rue it perhaps more than you do. I’ve dealt with more than twenty lawyers in various ways over the course of 30 years and have high opinions of all but 2 of them. I consider the law to be a true profession rather than a trade such as journalism. I fail to see how the status of the profession of law can be elevated when the primary focus remains process and justice is relegated to the status of some sort of obscure minutiae that is always regarded as subjective in nature. It is sad to see a fine profession sacrificed in the pursuit of a “higher” truth.

I would rather hear Thornburg’s answer to “What ethical/moral purpose or principle does your involvement in this report advance?” rather than “Why did you lie?” If he can’t give a decent answer to the purpose/principle question, then I would say that he no longer warrants a prestigious reputation.

Paul Volcker appears to be walking a similiar path and might give some consideration as to what type of conclusion his OFF report should reach.

Dan Rather remains ‘Queen of the Space Unicorns’ and who is to say otherwise.

But, it seems to me a lack of courage on Thornburgh’s part and makes him an enabler. But that’s my subjective view, of course.

Also I don’t care for the term ‘forgery’. Doesn’t that imply that these were knockoffs of ‘real’ documents? These are fakes, pure and simple.

I think that all those high power Washington types are just covering for each other. It is ok to throw one of us in jail, but come on, Dan Rather and the guys at 60 Minutes are not peasants.

A slap on the wrist, a shame on you and no doubt the fall from grace is punishment enough.

Just another case of white collar crime.

I rue the legal profession’s current reputation.

Like many lawyers I went into the practice of law thinking it to be among the most honorable and important of the “helping professions”. My role models– the images I held of lawyers as I entered law school– were Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch and Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow. And there are many, many talented, honest, great lawyers out there, hard at work for the good of our civilization and our society. I acknowledge though, that there are the others. I wish it was not so.

I think Thornburgh and his colleagues are probably reasonably honest, but found themselves caught in the bind discussed above in this tread.

Perhaps the problem here is that this was not a job that should have been done by lawyers at all. Wouldn’t it have been better for CBS to “suck it up” and do it’s own thorough house cleaning, a la Howell Raines at the NYT after the Jayson Blair scandal? Say what you will about Raines and his own political bias, THAT move showed integrity and class. That CBS wouldn’t or couldn’t follow the Times’ example speaks volumes, in fact it almost says it all, does it not?