BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Well, duh: They were forgeries

7 comments on Well, duh: They were forgeries

Well, duh: They were forgeries

: The NY Times has the story this morning:

After days [try almost two weeks – ed] of expressing confidence about [read: stonewalling on – ed] the documents used in a “60 Minutes” report that raised new questions about President Bush’s National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts [read: know they f’ed up -ed] about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified [hoping they wouldn’t be the ones to take the fall for this -ed], said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents’ origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air. [well, duh -ed]

What they should do is come on the air tonight with Rather apologizing and interviewing those who exposed the forgeries and thank them for getting to the truth. That’s what they should do. But they won’t. (See my NY Post op-ed below. The Post just put it online here. )

: UPDATE: See also Tom Watson’s call for restraint from reflexive back-patting. I don’t fully agree with him; he doesn’t fully agree with me; that’s what makes the ‘sphere go round.

: See also Rex Hammock charting the 10 phases of fan-hitting.

7 responses to “Well, duh: They were forgeries”

  1. Steve K. Avatar
    Steve K.

    Excellent piece for the Post, Jeff. Amen and amen!

  2. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    As EARLY as today!
    I feel like delivering a version of Albert Brooks’ rant in Lost in America to CBS, about how they’re not allowed to use the word “early.”

  3. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    As early as today – as opposed to ‘later’. Now somehow CBS has to extricate itself from the reality that they weren’t duped but were complicit – so dumbass Dan can keep on saying that sure they were inept forgeries that we were more than happy to report on but they’re really true. Maybe they can get Martin Baron from the Boston Globe to explain why it’s OK to put pictures from porn sites on the front page showing US soldiers ‘raping’ Iraqi women because everything’s OK as long as it’s against Bush.

  4. ron Avatar
    ron

    Great op-ed, Jeff
    My prediction of the outcome, FWIW:
    * Only Mapes walks the plank
    * CBS reiterates “fake but accurate” angle
    * CBS again blames VRWC for “counterattack”
    Why nothing more? Because I believe that CBS *still* doesn’t get it.

  5. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    Well, the announcement is out.
    Link
    “MAN WHO GAVE CBS NEWS DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES HOW HE OBTAINED THEM; IN TELEVISION INTERVIEW, HE ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY MISLED CBS NEWS PRODUCER
    CBS NEWS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, BASED ON SUBSEQUENT REPORTING ON QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT PROVE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE “60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY” REPORT
    CBS NEWS AND CBS MANAGEMENT ARE COMMISSIONING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW”

  6. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    CBS still doesn’t get it, read their statement.
    Basically it says, golly, what do you know, now they seem fake. But we’re still committed to serving the public, and you can trust us, because apparently we’re the dumbest goddam people on the planet and would buy an alien skeleton that still had its Target sticker on it if someone offered us the exclusive.

  7. John Avatar
    John

    The statement sounds like CBS has realized their default position is no longer viable, but they are still willing to stonewall on revealing the names of those involved with giving them the documents in the first place.
    That may not turn out to be true (we’ll see after tonight’s Rather broadcast), but if so, you have to think they’re trying to either release as little information as possible and hope that will satisfy the angry mobs — or at the very least the reporters at the Washington Post, Newsweek and ABC News — or they’re hoping they can delay offering up a full investigative report on the scandal until after Election Day, when any revelation could no longer have an effect on the voting results.