Posted on 09/15/2004 12:44:41 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
CBS News President Andrew Heyward said yesterday that his network will not reveal the source of disputed documents used to report that President Bush received favored treatment in the Texas Air National Guard, even though that decision may mean many Americans would distrust a 60 Minutes report on the subject. "I'm confident the story was appropriately vetted before it went on the air. It is the nature of this kind of investigative reporting that sometimes sources remain confidential," Heyward said in a telephone interview. "We're going to hang tough, even if that leaves some questions unanswered."
The charged political atmosphere surrounding the story has made it more difficult to identify sources publicly, he said.
"This is a political hot potato," Heyward said. "There's a kind of harassment, an attempt to intimidate, that I think gives people pause."
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
CBS seems to have thrown journalistic integrity (Hahahah) overboard -- so what? That is not illegal.
Some in the GOP are pushing for a quick Congressional hearing. My sense is that CBS has no fear of this, becuase that makes the stink bigger. The bigger the stink, the better.
What CBS is doing is primarily in the political realm, and seems to skirt the boundaries of defamation law quite deftly. The person most damaged by the charges is GWB, and he has said that his TexANG service was honorable, and looking forward, not particulalrly relevant.
The DEMs have used an amazing tool here. ANd their action, while appearing irrational, is, I think, designed to cause cognitive dissonance.
Who's next? "Wes Point"?
evening@cbsnews.com
I think most people agree that whatever the rules are, some of them have been broken. Not being critical of source material (so the forgeries are taken as authentic); ignoring evidence; running a story after being told by your own people and your own experts that the story is false; etc.
But the "rules" are part of a voluntary code of journalism. There is no legal remedy to what CBS is doing, that I know of. And establishing legal rules is problematic. Legal rules on speech (beyond defamation)? Rut-roh.
I suspect CBS is hoping for a REALLY deadly hit by Hurricane Ivan. They can then do 24/7 coverage of that instead of political news. The rest of the MSM are doing a reasonable job, in light of their biases, but I am not sure if it will be enough to really hammer CBS as it should. The NY Times has survived scandal upon scandal.... but I continue to hope.
Good find.
I have a degree in communications; in my journalism classes, my instructors taught me that ANY source who lies to you, gives bogus docs, et cetera, gets burned.
This is not to salvage your credibility--the only way to undo the damage is a long time of NOT being a conduit for bad material.
This is what's known as "professional courtesy" to OTHER journalists. When you shield a bad source, you are giving that source credibility with your peers.
Priceless.
That's one big bed they're all in together.
Excerpt:
Dan Rather was complicit in defrauding the American public in an attempt to defeat a sitting President.
Rather must be fired now. Congress should subpoena CBS News' lawyers and all documentation of their advice.
But Dan Rather and CBS News had become co-conspirators by the time of their broadcast. ABC News has revealed that two of the experts whom CBS News consulted before running the broadcast — Emily Will from North Carolina and Linda James of Plano, Texas — could not and would not authenticate the fraudulent Killian memos, and expressly told CBS that.
The first witness must be an appropriate custodian of records from CBS News, who must be directed to bring every shred of paper, every email, every piece of videotape, every computer file, every outtake, every script, every memorandum of staff meetings — and every bit of advice rendered by inside or outside legal counsel to CBS News prior to the broadcast. There is no attorney-client privilege to shield advice rendered to assist a client in the perpetration of a crime or a fraud. See, e.g., Swindler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998); United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).
This is so interesting to observe. CBS is stunned that they got caught. I've said it before and here it is again: The interent disallows the MSM from determining the news. Don't you think they knew that, based on the concerns of their experts, eventually someone would question the authenticity of the memos? I truly believe they thought it would be a slow moving movement to discredit the memos and probably die away sometime after the election, after damage was done, with the status of said memos undetermined. With the speed of the internet and the vastness of regular people like me, regular people from all walks of life (even "experts" like typists and word processors, military, etc.-some here on FR) the games up!
Bye Bye SeeBS!!
I think the fraud is bigger than CBS. I think it's bigger than "Bush missed a physical and got special treatment." I think that was supposed to be the set-up for an even bigger (and even less evidenced) charge, such as "he missed it cuz he was coked up out of his mind!!!" (I forget where I first saw that theory, or I would credit the source)
The memos' obvious falseness has thrown a big, fat monkey wrench into the gears of the liberal machinations. So now they have to find a way to dump the memos but keep the charges alive, so they can still get to stage II. Which is what CBS will attempt to do today (dump the memos, not get to stage II yet). CBS will continue to insist that their story is true, even without the memos to back it.
Doesn't this make CBS News a co-conspirator in a crime?
It's a dodge, a flimflam, deception, duck, evasion, strategy, subterfuge.......
cBS reaction to being caught using forged docs. to smear President Bush...."Look at that hurricane...."
It does to me.
Ahh -- a person who has education in the field.
As far as I know, the LEGAL perimiter of journalism fraud is made up of defamation and copyright (plagerism) law. The point of protection of sources has a legal boundry too, generally circumscribed by information related to criminal activity.
But other than that, journalism is a self-policing field. There is no legal remedy (other than noted above) for "journalism fraud." The penalty is hiring/firing of journalists who fail to meet "the code."
Do I have it right?
Oh, I'm certain of that. But I think the fraud began with CBS with the full knowledge of the DNC - rather than beginning with the DNC who slipped the documents to an "unwitting" CBS. I believe that there was unprecedented coordination between CBS and the DNC. Players at the DNC may have expressed a wish to bring down Bush and players at CBS said: "we can make it happen."
CBS will continue to insist that their story is true, even without the memos to back it.
I agree completely. They're only recourse is to say: "who you you trust? Us or your lying eyes?" They can't come clean. I predict they will not come clean.
The source has to be revealed. A first year law student will know that fraud, forgeries, and lies have no 1st Amendment source protection.
Given how FAST these were discredited, there is ZERO believability that six weeks of research did not expose them as fakes.
I don't know but you but I think the National Enquirer would be really offended if you lumped them in the same category as CBS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.