No admission of bias, but frankly, while I am sure some at CBS DID have a bias, you can't just assume it. You have to prove it without there being other possibilities.
Ultimately, there are some things that definitely played a role, such as the rush to get the story on the air......and Mapes desperate for anything to get her the story after 4 years of hard work....plus the lack of oversight and involvement, and even basic journalism like checking the facts and credibility of sources.
And while I am sure bias had a part in some, I doubt it could have been proven, and I doubt all involved had a bias. Case in point that not everybody was bad: a producer named Yvonne raised questions about the report, but was not forceful enough to get it stopped.
I'm still waiting to see some evidence of that hard work. Where are all the sources? Burkett is and always has been a loon. So where are the real sources?
There was no bias. Everyone hates Bush, don't they ?
No sale. I can assume it, RW, - and I do. In fact, I assume that everyone I come into contact with has an agenda of one sort or another. The burden of proof is on any contrary assertion.Besides, it is easy to prove that CBS acted with a political motivation. You need only conduct a thought experiment:
The issue is not the service of the Repulican but of the Democratic presidential candidate. A plastic-bananna set of "memos" comes to the CBS office which are not originals but all-but-illegible nth-generation copies which cannot, in the nature of things, be verified by document experts. Would CBS have lifted a finger to show those documents the light of day?Refusing to decide a question when you have all the information you need is just as much a bias as deciding a question wrongly when you know better.The treatment of the SBVT answers that question!