A charge to the CBS Commission

A charge to the CBS Commission

: Since Jay Rosen nominated me to the CBS commission that will investigate the Rather affair, I’ve been thinking about what it should accomplish. So, here is my charge to the CBS commission:

cbs2.jpg1. The screw-up: Find out everything that Rather and the producers did wrong — find out how they aired these forgeries and their conclusions based on them — but get past that quickly; it’s not the real story. Report about the reporting; find out who talked to whom when and what they said; find out who passed on the documents and the conclusions. Fine. Treat all that as the 9/11 Commission treated its narrative; it’s just the story of a screw-up, that’s all. It’s the symptom, not the disease.

Don’t fire anybody. That’s management’s job, not yours.

2. The fixes: Make recommendations about how not to do this again — but get past that quickly, too, for that is also not the real story.

We know how that will turn out: more people checking more things, more rules: We don’t cover the waterfront, we cover our asses. Fine.

But be careful: This could also chill gutsy reporting (and not just stupid reporting) and so you don’t want to go too far. Don’t get all anal, OK?

Now we get to the meat of your job, commissioners:

3. Transparency of process: Take a good, hard look at what we, the citizens, deserve to know about the process of news.

It’s sausage and yes, we do want to know how it’s made. It is our news. It is our right to know.

So make it clear how you decide what to air, how you make the stories, what you don’t run, even the debate in the newsroom. When I was at the Aspen Institute for this discussion, many of the (other) gray beards said we in journalism should be judged by our product, not our process. I disagree. Our product is being questioned, so we must reveal our process.

And I say that will work to our favor; it will show how we try to get it right, even when we fail.

And, by the way, if the network had believed in transparency of process, they would not have stonewalled this story for 12 days. (And ain’t that ironic, by the way: Dan Rather goes out stonewalling just like Dick Nixon.)

4. Transparency of bias: This the biggie, commissioners, so don’t wimp out. I say that every reporter, producer, and executive should be quizzed in detail about their own opinions and biases and those biases should be revealed. Then let the public judge their truthfulness, for they already are. Let’s see whether Dan Rather still tries to act as if he doesn’t dislike Bush, then he’s still not telling the audience the truth… and if he doesn’t tell the truth about that, then they will wonder about the rest of what he tells them.

That is why we need to be transparent about our viewpoints: The worst agenda is a hidden agenda. So let’s not hide behind “objectivity’ and all this “Tiffany network” bullshit. We’re human; we have opinions; spit ’em up.

5. Conversation: Now we get to the citizen journalists. And yes, they (we) are journalists, too.

The commission should invite the bloggers who went after CBS into the same room with the highest PTUTB (powers that used to be) of CBS News for at least a day and they should vow to come out understanding each other better. Rather has to understand that we, the people, also care about the truth — perhaps more than he does. He has to understand that we, the crowd, know more than he does. And the bloggers need to understand that not every journalist is a venal viper; they really do want to serve the public.

Speaking of the public, the next day, CBS PTUTB meet viewers and discover that they’re not idiots waiting to be spoonfed. And then the PTUTB meet news sources and discover that they often feel misquoted and screwed.

These encounter sessions should leave even Dan Rather humbled.

6. Future: Another tough one (they’re all tough): CBS has to admit that it’s all downhill from here for network news.

They have to face the facts of cable news (I’d make the mucketies watch FoxNews for 24 hours straight) and the internet and blogs and mobile phones and the commoditization of news. They have to come to grips with the idea (pardon my repetition) that we don’t wait for them to bring the news to us anymore, but the news waits for us to get it. They have to serve us where and when and how we want to be served (probably without overpaid anchors, by the way).

And they have to wrestle with the business reality and the deadly dominoes of more competition and smaller audiences and less revenue and smaller news operations the need to be more efficient and concentrate on what makes them valuable and what doesn’t (i.e., no more sending 15,000 reporters to a political convention where no news happens… and no more fat paychecks to overpaid anchors).

So the bottom line: You the commissioners should imagine what TV news should be. Don’t just fix Dan’s screw-up. Reform and reinvent TV news.

Anything less is only another CYA memo.

: A few more things:

Make sure you don’t just include retired TV news PTUTB on this commission. Bring on bloggers (in addition to me), news sources, viewers, and young people, too (it’s their news next). This isn’t about the priests policing the priests.

And the entire process should be transparent — completely on-the-record and bloggable from the first minute. Don’t give me any crap about how that would chill the commission’s work. It’s time for tough truth love here: All the truth, all the time.

20 responses to “A charge to the CBS Commission”

  1. Mistercalm Avatar
    Mistercalm

    Amen! I watched you, Tom Jarrel, Hugh Downs, Mr. Bloom (was it?) and that “documentarian” on Deborah Norville’s show the other night. I felt like you made the best points (of course, I’m engaged with the blogosphere… I haven’t had an editor or anchorman decide what I should or shouldn’t read or see for quite awhile). Why in the hell do journalists still insist on this idea of “you can’t be privy to our behind the scenes discussions lest it make us nervous and apprehensive about what we report”? Doesn’t that perfectly express WHY transparency is a paramount concern? If you cannot truthfully explain why something is being done then that pretty much indicates that you shouldn’t be doing it. If you’re not willing to say, “We’re running negative stories about alledged misconduct by President Bush as a TANG pilot 30 years ago to deflect criticism about John Kerry’s aledged misconduct as a Vietnam sailor 30 years ago… so let’s get out there and DIG” then you shouldn’t do it! If, on the other hand, that IS what you do, then you should be willing to say that and not try to masquerade your intentions or “church it up” like Dan Rather pretends to. “Journalistic Ethics” is right up there with “Jumbo Shrimp”.

  2. button Avatar

    Ah, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff! Sigh!! Nice appointment. And I’m confident you’ll do a good job.
    But I wish you could do something about Michael Powell ruining my dinner last night when he invaded my home and broadcast a salacious levitra tv commercial by a very smarmy gal talking about E-tile Dysfunction while I was eating my vegetable soup.
    Only after 10 pm, please. Or on ‘adult’ channels.
    Could you possibly put this next on your ‘to-do’ list?
    Get rid of this guy, pu-leez! Get the hook; call The Sandman!
    I’m starting to entertain conspiracy theories about this. And how the J Jackson pseudo-incident is being used as a red herring to divert the public’s attention away from Powell acting as a cat’s paw for the Big Pharm Corps.
    My tinfoil hat must be overheating my brain, but I can’t help it. When is relief coming?

  3. Birkel Avatar

    I have to say I love your suggestions. That is what makes me think it will never happen. The institutional inertia inherent (Yeah alliteration!!) in organizations the size of CBS will never permit such agitation.
    Change managers are HATED. LBO’s became a popular method for ending organizational sclerosis in the 1980’s. It’s a fact, incrementalism is the best we can hope CBS will attempt.
    But, here’s looking at you kid!!

  4. pianoman Avatar

    Jeff:
    I appreciate your idealism. But the entrenched MSM isn’t going to let this happen.

  5. Rachel Avatar

    Why does Dan have a producer with such an obvious agenda? IS CBS just her little soapbox?

  6. Thomas Vincent Avatar

    Ah Jeff, you are finally getting around to the meat of why your readers asked you to cover this. Good Job :)

  7. Eileen Avatar

    Hello Jeff and Crew,
    Sheepishly, I admit to being a neophite bloggerette (? – don’t know your shop talk). In fact, Jeff, as a result of your Deborah episode I tuned in to your Buzz for the first time…. Kudos!!!
    Meanwhile (unaware of the blogosphere), I’ve quietly been writing to the Associated Press directly about their biased, slanted reporting. In fact, I offered to be their ‘opinion check editor’.
    Here is a quote from my 9/19 letter to them: “Perhaps you guys need some instruction upon how to report the news without attempting to influence political outcomes, and how to write about FACTS instead of opinion-based and blatently biased ‘stories’. The naked assertion(s) that the President is only visiting hurricane ravaged regions to make political gains in an election year is vile and disgusting.
    Again, we are not idiots out here. Stop trying to influence opinion and election results by injecting your own ideologies and bias into the news! We don’t need your attempts at brainwashing and mind control. It is not your job to sell opinions ala AP’s particular slant upon politics, religion, or any other newsworthy topic.
    Clearly you need some assistance in matters of journalistic discipline. I hereby offer my services as your ‘opinion check editor’. In about ten minutes daily I could strip your articles of all of their pervasively gratuitous and overtly biased materials. The alacrity with which I could perform the task is not based upon lack of material to excise; rather, it is due to my reading skills and ability to perceive your bias in less than a second. It is so simple, really.
    Just stick to the facts.
    Were you to do so, you would begin to restore respect for an industry which is sorely lacking in that regard.
    My rates are quite reasonable; however, I highly doubt your organization wishes to refrain from what are, clearly, deeply entrenched standards of bright, yellow colored journalism. I learned about such tactics in high school. Where did you guys go to school?”
    Synchronicities in terms of timing this week, eh? For my writing was not based on the Rather saga.
    Meanwhile…….were you, Jeff, to be appointed to the commission I’m sure your insight would be instrumental in uncovering the sad, shady facts. And as a further point of investigation, let’s not forget whatever connections (may) exist between the DNC and the Kerry campaign.
    As a J.D. and former criminal defense investigator, this whole episode smacks of collusion.
    Here’s to you, Jeff, and all you keepers of the light. Glad to know you’re here…..
    Warmest regards,
    Eileen

  8. Ruth Avatar

    Very good suggestions, Jeff, and may I add one more that long has rankled with me, that there be coverage of a broad range of news events instead of the present practice of droves of reporters covering the obvious.
    During the week of the announcement of John Edwards’ nomination, a vital series of hearings on Defense appropriations was carried in toto on C-Span. In the course of the hearings, Republicans and Democrats alike refused to let their military reductions prior to 9/11 be blamed totally on any party entirely.
    The entire committee countered Defense Department spokesmen trying to pin blame on a few Democrats, pointing out that it was due to a Bush Sr. proposal presented by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Powell, and that Bush Jr. had proposed further cutbacks. (At the time, missile defense was the major emphasis.)
    It was a beautiful sight, and at odds with the divisive happenings that so often dominate the political scene. It went totally unnoted in newspapers and on broadcasts.
    The public deserves news, not photo ops.

  9. Thomas E. Davis Avatar
    Thomas E. Davis

    The moment the MSM crowd understands that its self appointed “gatekeepers and filters” role is obsolete is the moment it begins to recover from its current affliction.

  10. Michael Avatar

    I’m with you up to this point: I say that every reporter, producer, and executive should be quizzed in detail about their own opinions and biases and those biases should be revealed.
    You’re right that we should get past the fallacy of objectivity in journalism, but requiring each journalist/producer to undergo some type of inquisition to determine their bias reeks of oppression. Instead for making them state/defend their bias, we just need to educate the public on identifying and acknowledging the biases in what they see/hear/read.

  11. Brett Avatar

    I’d go instead for an eBay-like system where registered “us” can vote for the tilt of a reporter. Let us decide how they swing.

  12. Brett Avatar

    Jeff,
    Bias is not so much revealed in what they report, as what they don’t report.
    Here’s an example:
    Bush spoke at the UN yesterday. Jeff, you pointed out the democracy fund.
    Look at this article from the AP’s reporter Terrence Hunt:
    http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/9724282.htm
    No mention of the fund.
    And would you say that “democracy” was a major theme of his speech? The words “democracy” or “democracies” are mentioned 15 times in Bush’s speech.
    The AP mentions it once, and in this reference:
    “Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero – who came to power by criticizing his predecessor’s unpopular support for the Iraq war – said he agreed with Bush on defending liberty and democracy, but disagreed on other matters.”
    But when Kerry goes to give a speech, they pretty much just quote him.
    That’s why those of us in the cheap seats need to weigh in on the bias of these guys with a rating system. I don’t care about their views, really. I care about the facts and the whole story.

  13. Michael Avatar

    Yes, but Brett – your very comment has bias. You use one example of one speech as evidence. You make unsupported claims about how Kerry is covered. How are we in the “cheap seats” supposed to point out media bias when we we can’t escape our own?
    Now, I’m not trying to say you shouldn’t have bias – bias is unavoidable. That’s the whole point. So, instead of hoping that “average people” will be able to point out media bias and render themselves immune is just as much of a fallacy. We simply need to acknolwedge that bias exists all around us, and learn how to deal with it, cope with it, even benefit from it.

  14. Brett Avatar

    Then allow me to source, Michael.
    Yesterday, reported by Ron Word of the AP on the Dems in Florida.
    http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/9724052.htm
    This story even quotes Edwards suggesting black voter suppression. Nice, eh?
    From a few days earlier, Kerry in New Mexico:
    http://www.channeloklahoma.com/politics/3740095/detail.html
    Or, five Dem governors stumping for Kerry in Michigan:
    http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-19/109545745796410.xml&storylist=
    It’s just whole-hearted quoting.
    Now, there are reporters who will give both sides, but it’s much more frequent to see Kerry and team getting a pass without pushback.

  15. slim999 Avatar

    Jeff,
    What if it turns out that the following are true:
    1) That Dan Rather knew that the SOLE source of these documents was Bill Burkett, and knew of Burkett’s writings and leanings?
    2) That Dan Rather knew that Burkett claimed these doucments originated with George Conn, but nobody talked to George Conn to see if Burkett was maybe lying?
    3) That Dan Rather knew that the only way Burkett would give up the “memos” was for CBS to hook him up with Kerry’s campaign?
    3) That Dan Rather knew that the documents might be fakes and that, to cover their asses, they might want to have these looked over by some document experts?
    4) That Dan Rather knew the analysts CBS asked to look over the documents raised questions about their authenticity to the degree that they were warned that one day AFTER the story aired, many, many document examiners were going to do the same thing?
    5) That even today, Dan Rather still thinks these documents are authentic?
    What if it turns out that, even in spite of all of this, Dan chose to run with the story anyway and that CBS brass and lawyers, despite having a lot of doubts, let him do it?

  16. Eric Deamer Avatar

    This is great, great stuff Jeff. This is one of the best things you’ve ever written. The trouble is this is too idealistic. Sadly, most of this will never ever ever ever ever happen. As I type this, the news has come out that the entire panel will be composed of one retired Justice Department guy and one retired MSM guy (former editor of the AP I think). 2 old men. That’s it. They’re trying to sweep this under the rug as we speak.

  17. Kat Avatar

    The part that really bothers me is that even though the story was one fat forgery–they are still maintaining that sure the documents were false, but maybe the story was true. Liberal media is trying to influence the election, and don’t seem to think forgeries are a big deal if some may think there is some truth to their message. That is unacceptable. The story has NO credibility because the so called proof was a forgery–a lie.

  18. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    Jeff:
    I just read your New York Post op-ed. Strong work! You strike a good balance between outrage and sorrow, between pride in weblog fact-checking and humility for our general human foibles.
    About the CBS/Rathergate commission:
    I strongly believe that Mary Mapes (the memo-story producer) knew the memos were forgeries before the story aired. I also believe that Dan Rather probably knew they were fakes.
    Just think about that for a minute. Imagine, hypothetically, that I’m correct in my suspicions. What are the implications of that? Doesn’t that add a much uglier dimension to everything that’s happened? This would make the bias almost a secondary part of the story. The real story would be how Rather and Mapes were willing accessories to a major fraud and forgery.
    Of course, I don’t have proof, or even the resources to try and establish the proof of these charges. But there does seem to be prima facie evidence that Mapes and Rather committed fraud.
    Until this bigger question is answered, the whole media-bias angle seems almost like a sideshow.

  19. Brett Avatar

    I mentioned earlier that media bias is more apparent by what they don’t say than what they do say. Bias is in what they leave out. So, here’s an exercise in media bias that you can do yourself. It’s pretty simple.
    Everybody today has heard of the Kerry campaign accusing Bush of bringing back a military draft after the election. Gosh – that’s awful!
    So here’s a simple task that you can perform yourself. It’s both fun and educational.
    1) Open GoogleNews. Use the keywords “bush kerry draft” and you’ll probably see the headline “Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush.” Note that there are thousands of search results for these keywords.
    Go ahead – click on the story. Read the first paragraphs.
    Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.
    Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past.
    Please notice that NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE does it mention any legislation brought forward this year to support a reinstatement of the draft.
    2) Go back to GoogleNews. This time, use the keywords “bush kerry draft rangel” and you’ll get a grand total of 7 articles back.
    Why did I add the word “rangel”?
    Because Democrat Charles Rangel of New York and other house Democrats introduced just such draft legislation earlier this year.
    H. R. 163
    To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    JANUARY 7, 2003
    Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
    A BILL
    To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
    Here’s the link to HR 163:
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h163ih.txt.pdf

    • The media just parrots what the Democrats say.
    • They don’t put stories in context.
    • They don’t do their homework.
    • That’s why they will continue to have their asses handed to them on a platter by bloggers all day long.

    No credibility. They don’t need a commission. They simply need to lose their bias and stop repeating the lies. Give the context. Tell the whole story. It ain’t rocket science.

  20. Tim Avatar

    Keywords missing from this post, IMHO:
    Ethics
    Ombudsman
    News Council
    “a two-way relationship”