The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Too little, too late
: CBS and Dan Rather so royally screwed up and they didn’t even help themselves when it finally came time to admit they screwed up. They should have come out telling all and explaining every step of the process — reporting on their own reporting — and falling over themselves to apologize to (1) the audience, (2) Bush, (3) journalism. Instead:
The network did not say the memoranda
The usual excuse for a cheap and grudging corporate apology is that “the lawyers won’t let us” say anything else. But that doesn’t apply here – Bush isn’t about to sue, and Killian’s descendants can’t – so why is it, exactly, that CBS can’t say what your excellent post says they should?
Also, if Mapes and Rather were misled by Burkett they must be pretty easy to fool. It isn’t as if the man exactly kept his agenda a secret.
And “without fear or favoritism”? That’s just insulting.
They should have come out telling all and explaining every step of the process — reporting on their own reporting — and falling over themselves to apologize to (1) the audience, (2) Bush, (3) journalism.
Rather apologized for exercising bad judgment, which is what it was. Why dwell on inside baseball when there are real, substantive issues to report?
In addition, reporters like Jeff Gerth and Sue Schmidt have never been forced to apologize for being the stenographers of lies over the years. Why pick on Rather? It smacks of conservative bias and undeserved blog triumphalism.
The Calgary Sun and the WaPo (Howie!) had analyses of the apology published online (via Lucianne) before the blogger triumphalism had even started this morning. (Monday)
Which strikes me as ironic. Unless the MSM are just htat eager to poke at each other’s carcasses…
Why pick on Rather? It smacks of conservative bias and undeserved blog triumphalism.
Gee whiz. This is is a big story without conservative bias or blog triumphalism.
It’s a media story, not a story about the alleged “liberal” media. It’s a story about the role of blogs, not a story that blogs are everything.
Decades-established media figure X uses forged documents in story detrimental to sitting president Y in weeks leading up to an election. Please explain to me how that is not a big media story, forget liberal/conservative.
Pajama-clad bloggers fact-check established media, momentum leads to the facts coming out. It’s not triumphalism (the blogs had to continually fact-check each other as it developed, traditional media sources such as WaPo played an important role), it’s that blogs do matter as a part of the process.
In addition, reporters like Jeff Gerth and Sue Schmidt have never been forced to apologize for being the stenographers of lies over the years.
This is an excellent example of the tu quoque logical fallacy.
Recognize this for what it is. Judge this story on its own merits; please don’t compare it to something else in order to minimize it (whether it be Bush’s ANG service itself, kids starving in third-world countries, or kittens wandering the streets without shelter).
Rather apologized for exercising bad judgment, which is what it was. Why dwell on inside baseball when there are real, substantive issues to report?
Bad judgement? That’s what you call it when a reporter runs with a story he/she can’t back up? When he ran this story he became a mouthpiece for the DNC. You’ve got to be kidding me. And what about those real, substantive issues worth reporting? I guess this story was one until it was shown to be a farse.
This story is big, and it’s not done yet. Heads are going to roll and one most definitely should be Rather’s.
God help me, I agree with Orin Kerr:
My sense is that bloggers are embracing Memogate to the exclusion of other things, as if it were an enormous relief to be able to lose ourselves in the story. The story lets the right half of the blogosphere feast on some of its favorite themes: damn that liberal media, blogosphere to the rescue, etc. Don’t get me wrong, those are good themes. But at some point the hearty appetite begins to look like escapism. And I think we’ve reached that point, if not passed it long ago.
Accept Rather’s humilation gracefully and move on to substance.
Why is Dan Rather even involved with this investigation? He, along with Mary Mapes et al. should have dismissed themselves and let those not tainted handle this. Can you imagine the howls of outrage from MSM if say, Ken Lay announced that he was personally going to conduct an investigation into alleged wrong doing by Enron? Why is there a double standard for MSM and everybody else? This latest CBS canard will not stand.
“Why pick on Rather” is one of the most interesting perspectives in this episode. Can there be many who feel that Rather is a victim here? A multi-million-a-year talking head with access to one of the most powerful news machines in the world is, somehow, deserving of pity because he is being picked on? This is, unfortunately, the sector of the public that keeps organizations like CBS and the rest of legacy media afloat long after their engines died out — any time they are questioned severely for lapses in candor, they become victims and the public should “move on” to issues of substance, as though the two-week defense of fradulent documents by a major news agencies is not an issue of substance.
Mithras, send Dan some flowers, a sympathy card, maybe a giftcard for a meal at The Olive Garden where he can chat with BBC employees who have suffered the same sort of public abuse.
I think the real story is that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes deliberately muzzled their investigative instincts in order to influence the outcome of a Presidential race. The road they chose, this silly, irrelevant 30-year old military drama, isn’t the issue. CBS’s attempt to alter the Presidential election is. This is titanic arrogance, and it needs to be noted and dealt with.
Just more wallowing. Feels good, doesn’t it guys? Beats talking about Iraq, I guess.
Just more wallowing. Feels good, doesn’t it guys? Beats talking about Iraq, I guess.
Mithras,
Isn’t it possible to talk about more than one subject? I don’t understand why you feel that one thing is related to the other. Is there some ranking system, and we’re only allowed to discuss the most important story?
Mithras,
I just visited your blog and saw stories such as:
New Escort Blog
Added to the sex blogroll Alexa at A New York Escorts Confessions. She’s a Seven Sisters-educated (I think) recovering Catholic who has a couple of funny stories about Republican clients from the RNC.
How dare you talk about such things instead of the war in Iraq?
The stilted language, the parsed phrases, the source of the release and the way it was released all give further creedence to the propeller heads who see a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
The assumption that Burkett is the source is just an assumption. CBS has not revealed its “unimpeachable” source or the sources that gave “preponderance of the evidence” legalese cover to the DanScamGate.
When the Democratic Party ran an anti-Bush Primary and nobody spoke of isssues, the media were silent. No cries for issues or relevance when the dwindling gang all showed how they would shoot at Bush.
Now after DanScamGate and Swifty’s ads the NON-BIASED media are crying for discusssions about Issues. This seems to be very convenient?
CBS ran with the story because they expect the election to be finished before anyone caught them. Just as they have stonewalled and used legal mythology to delay and frustrate their accusers in the past. The BUSH-TANG story was supposed to be apologized for in 2007, if anybody was still interested.
This tactic has worked in the past. There was no reason to expect it not to work in the present.
Is the GOAL for CBS to bring down the President, for Rather to bag another Bush or simple hubris? Has CBS grown arrogant, aloof and out of touch with its marketplace?
What has changed between election cycles is that the audience now has cheap and easy ways to communicate with each other. Before each was left alone shouting at their TV. Now the energy can be focused, exchanged, expanded, and issues examined by an army of cheap labor.
The voice of democracy is unruly, noisy, unpleasant. What the blogging community represents is democracy in action.
Is the world forever changed? Probably not dramatically. Those who would ignore the unwashed masses may pay more attention. The blogging world may get co-opted by big bucks manipulation in the next election.
The reaction to this admission seems disproportionate, Hubris. CBS screwed up in a major way, the screw-up was revealed, Rather has apologized (and I assume will again on-air) and the president of CBS news has apologized. Despite bald assertions by people like Misanthropyst, there is no evidence that CBS intentionally promoted bogus goods. When I mentioned other journalists who have been used to transmit lies above, rather than making a tu quoque argument, I was pointing out that stuff like this happens sometimes.
The reaction to this admission seems disproportionate, Hubris. CBS screwed up in a major way, the screw-up was revealed, Rather has apologized (and I assume will again on-air) and the president of CBS news has apologized. Despite bald assertions by people like Misanthropyst, there is no evidence that CBS intentionally promoted bogus goods. When I mentioned other journalists who have been used to transmit lies above, rather than making a tu quoque argument, I was pointing out that stuff like this happens sometimes.
Sorry for the double post. Maybe someone should investigate me, too.
Hmm..was it Burkett, Barnes, or Cleland clicking your mouse?? ;)
Heads should roll! Here’s why.
Kudos Jeff for deciding to cover the CBS forgery story.
Hubris-
All three. It’s crowded in my office.
The reason that this story should persist is that despite memo-kiting, they’re pursuing the story, as though a) it’s true, despite the forgeries, and b) it matters what Bush did 30 years ago.
But trot on CBiaS.
‘there is no evidence that CBS intentionally promoted bogus goods. ‘
Did they do it unintentionally? Who is the ‘unimpeachable’ source? The Burkett nutbag? So either Rather was lying about the source or lying about the sources reliability or more likely both.
So either Rather was lying about the source or lying about the sources reliability or more likely both.
This has been up on the CBS.com website for some time. I assumed you all had seen it:
In a statement, CBS said former Texas Guard official Bill Burkett “has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents” and “admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.” …
Additional reporting on the documents will air on Monday’s CBS Evening News, including the interview of Burkett by Rather. CBS News pledged “an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken.” …
In the statement, CBS said: “Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point.”
The ridiculous thing about Mithras’ protestations is, of course that, were the shoe on the other foot, and John Kerry had been unfairly impugned by a major newscaster with forged documents, he and the Democratic party in general would be screaming bloody murder (hell, they’ve screamed bloody murder when he’s been fairly impugned by the Swift Boat Vets).
So now we know where the memos came from, right? No? Oh well. Why keep bugging them about it?
So now we know where the memos came from, right? No? Oh well. Why keep bugging them about it?
Hiccup!
“…admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.”
Emphasis mine. But hey, who cares, right?
hell, they’ve screamed bloody murder when he’s been fairly impugned by the Swift Boat Vets
I haven’t been screaming, even though the SwiftVets are obviously lying. At least get your facts straight.
One actually ridiculous thing is that liberals aren’t real fond of Rather. Doonesbury has mercilessly lampooned him as the character Roland Hedley for years before the right found it convenient to scapegoat the media. And Harry Shearer at Le Show does a mean impersonation of Rather as a self-important corporate cog who spouts bizarre aphorisms.
Mithras–of course you know the Swift Boat Vets are lying??? I happen to think they are telling the truth. You leftists seem to think that unless someone is robotic enough and stupid enough to think like you, they must be lying. I’m sick of your superior attitude. Just learn from Teresa Heinz Kerry and calll all people who disagree–idiots or scumbags.
Liberals aren’t fond of Rather–I’ll bet. They were all too eager to swallow his swill. Now they just want to move on because they know the Kerry campaign is likely knee deep in this particular “mud” pile.
Accept Rather’s humilation gracefully and move on to substance.
Humiliation? Oh no, he hasn’t been nearly “humiliated” enough.
He still has his job.
And he still knows who the CBS-Burkett-Kerry connection is.
Oh no, this isn’t over by a long shot. Not while he has a shred of dignity left.
I’m sick of your superior attitude.
Ah, the refrain of the mediocre.
You know, you don’t have to read my posts, Kat.
I want to know who in the Kerry campaign was involved.
I may have my answer soon.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200409202230.asp
I haven’t been screaming, even though the SwiftVets are obviously lying. At least get your facts straight.
You can say it until you are blue in the face. But the SwiftVets aren’t obviously lying. You’ll have to pull out forged documents like CBS just did to counter the SwiftVets hundreds of affidavits.
We might be able to tell if the SwiftVets were telling the truth, but John Kerry hasn’t released the relevant records. He has yet to sign his 180.
‘even though the SwiftVets are obviously lying.’
I’m sorry – who was lying, and repeatedly lied for years after, about being in Cambo on Christmas eve and who was lying about their first purple heart?
‘In a statement, CBS said former Texas Guard official Bill Burkett “has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents” and “admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.” …’
Burkett – known nutjob – is an unimpeachable source? – well an unimpeachable source of Bush hating bias – So dubious Dan can now site any source as unimpeachable? Maybe now we have abetter understanding of Dan’s characterization of WJC as ‘honest’. I would have to assume that if Dan were duped by Burkett and that’s his standard for reliability then a fair portion of his other reporting comes from equally reliable sources.
It’s pretty clear bloggers who have delusions of grandeur have a LONG way to go to understand what journalism really is.
CBS didn’t really screw up (and I expect them to investigate even more) but did what any reputable news organization would have done.
Since when have the NYT and WP and CNN apologized for their journalistic malpractice against Bill and Hillary Clinton? They haven’t, and the memos flap (which haven’t been proven to be forgeries, by the way) was nothing compared to the vicious slanders against the president and his wife by so-called objective media.
CBS is of the old school journalism, while the other so-called “news” organizations are total crap.
They have modems on the Bizarro World?
‘bloggers who have delusions of grandeur have a LONG way to go to understand what journalism really is.’
using forgeries as a source of a story and then lying about your sources credibility should help them understand what it isn’t.
‘CBS didn’t really screw up’ they didn’t accept fake documents from a rabid partisan and then pass them off as legit even though their experts said they probably weren’t and then the senior editor of their news division defended an obvious partisan whack job as an ‘unimpeachable source’?
‘which haven’t been proven to be forgeries, by the way’
On Earth they’ve been acknowledged as unverifiable by experts and false.
I think your psychiatrist has ‘a LONG way to go to go’