Critics Question No-Bias Finding By CBS Panel

Washington Post ^ | 01/12/05 | Howard Kurtz

[Pikamax]

Critics Question No-Bias Finding By CBS Panel

By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page C01

If there is one line in the 224-page report on CBS News that has set critics aflame, it is that there is no "basis" for concluding that Dan Rather and his colleagues had a "political bias" in pursuing their badly botched story about President Bush's National Guard service.

What, they say? No evidence?

"In any fair-minded assessment of how CBS performed and why they so badly butchered their own standards, that has to be part of the explanation," said former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a professor at George Washington University. "It's not just that they wanted to be first, they wanted to be first with a story that was critical of the president."

[Mo1]

What, they say? No evidence?

All depends on the meaning of "evidence" is

IMO ... The media and this report are still covering for CBS and Dan Rather

[swilhelm73]

Two points,

1) CBS lays the blame for running with the fakes, because they wanted to beat other news outlets to press with it. However, they had been working on the story for 5 years. If no one else had picked up the trail in that amount of time, what could possibly lead them to believe someone else was on it?

Also, seeing as they had to bring together the Kerry campaign and Burkett to get the story, and bribe Nurkett, a serious violation of journalistic ethics, were they presuming that all of the rest of the MSM would sink so low too?

2) There was a similar story floating about Kerry's war record. Unlike Burkett, the Swift Boat vets had first hand knowledge of which they spoke, weren't demanding face time with the Republican party, and didn't want money.

CBS ignored this story for months, specifically until Kerry started bashing the Swiftees, and they joined in with the bashing. Certainly the Swiftees story was at least as of much interest to a neutral observer as the TANG story...no?

[martin_fierro]

Under the heading "Information that Might Suggest a Political Agenda," the report listed a five-year pursuit of the Guard story by Rather and Mapes; the use of strongly anti-Bush sources; and Mapes's call to Joe Lockhart, which put the John Kerry campaign adviser in touch with Bill Burkett, the source of the suspect Guard documents about Bush's military service. (On the opposite side, the panel cited previous reporting by Rather and Mapes in both Democratic and Republican administrations.)
Mapes's zeal for the story is clear from her e-mail to a freelancer with a lead on the Guard documents: "I desperately want to talk to you. . . . Do NOT underestimate how much I want this story."

Naaaaah. No definitive political bias there.

[NonValueAdded]

As others have pointed out, the question of political motivation can also be answered by a study of the stories SeeBS chose not to pursue. SeeBS was conducting yet another proctological exam of the thoroughly investigated story of GWB's TANG service. As far as I can tell, not a single MSM Outet conducted anything more than a cursory examination of John Kerry's service record despite clear indications that all as not as Kerry said it was. Kerry was changing his story in public for crying out loud! Yet nobody rose up to the Gary Hart style challenge? Even when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth laid it all out for them as had others before, SeeBS decided that they would ignore Kerry and pursue GWB. Did the committee even ask SeeBS why?

[Soul Seeker]

This, Boccardi acknowledged, "won't satisfy anybody who thinks anything short of outright condemnation, a finding of political bias, was an act of cowardice . . . that we didn't have the nerve, courage, wisdom, insight to say it."

And you say what? You did have the nerve, courage, wisdom and insight to say it? Your conclusion would seem to disprove that idle thought.

Bias isn't so difficult to prove. Your entire report detailed it in abundance! "Myopic zeal"? Come on! No one is fooled here.

[Buckhead]

They forgot to mention that critics also question the indefensible refusal to conclude that the documents were forgeries.

[TruthWillWin]

They are still in denial.

There is no way CBS or the rest of the MSM will ever regain their credibility until they realize and admit they have a big problem with political bias's. Then perhaps they will start a new type of affirmative action program with the goal of having appropriate percentages of conservative reporters, editors, journalists, etc.

Not going to happen soon.

[ForGod'sSake]

The last line in the article:

But, she[Linda Mason] added, "Dan does think he's constantly attacked. If we backed off every story that was criticized, we wouldn't be doing any stories."

I don't suppose they EVER considered ANY criticism as valid? Nah. Arrogance is bliss(to coin a new phrase) ;^)

Their mindset is baffling.

FGS

[Malesherbes]

The biggest lie of all is this - that journalism is a "profession" and that that "profession" is taught in "schools of journalism."

[dk/coro]

I would suggest that you are being a bit optimistic relative to the reacquisition of credibility by CBS -- or any other leg of MSM.

The "new media" will make these dinosaurs totally irrelevant within another decade or so, IMHO. Thank goodness.

Respectfully, dkp

[conservative in nyc]

As far as I can tell, not a single MSM Outet conducted anything more than a cursory examination of John Kerry's service record despite clear indications that all as not as Kerry said it was.

Let's be fair. The New York Sun and Chicago Sun Times printed a series of articles from freelance reporter Thomas Lipscomb regarding Kerry's military record. And the cable news networks (especially Fox News and to a lesser extent MSNBC) gave extensive coverage to the Swift Boat Vets and their allegations. Even the Washington Post and ABC devoted significant time to investigating part of the Swiftee's allegations. We may not have liked the results of Nightline's Vietcong visit, but at least they attempted to do further investigation. And I actually found the Washington Post's factual research into the Swiftee's charges refreshing.

But CBS made absolutely no attempt to examine John Kerry's service record. Instead, 60 Minutes and CBS gave significant airtime to authors of anti-Bush books, the Abu Ghraib prison abuse "scandal" (which the military was already investigating) and the President's national guard record. Heck, Mary Mapes had significant contact with not only the Kerry campaign, but also some of the same anti-Bush political hacks (Linda Starr of Opinion Journal and Paul Lukasik) who tried to push the Bush-was-AWOL story in conjunction with the DUmmies' good friend, "Black-Box Voting" Bev Harris in November 2000.

Given the company Mapes kept, there's no question in my mind that she and SeeBS news were biased.

[swilhelm73]

DUmmies' good friend, "Black-Box Voting" Bev Harris

I seem to recall hearing that Harris tried "fundraising" through DU without DU's permission and is no longer welcome.

BWHAHAHAHA! I love liberal crooks ripping off liberals.

OTOH, I really should pass on the "look at what the DUmmies are up to" threads on FR. :)

[veryconernedamerican]

if no bias, then why the firings? how can they even say this with a straight face. morons

[Angry Enough]

"Rather is sitting here maintaining, despite everything, that the memos don't actually matter, that the story is right."

The Dims version of reality: If it's not true, it should be.

[JoeSixPack1]

Ok, there's been 100+ articles on this today.

I keep serching for the part where CBS loses their broadcast license. Until I read abour that, nothing has changed. Nada. Zip.

The bloviated report, the unlikely pundits who attacked it, and the cumulative verbage explaining the unintended feined ignorance of the players all have the same coverup stench as Whitewater.

[NonValueAdded]

But in that same spirit of being fair, it was essentially surface reporting with little investigative reporting. Sure, lots of outlets covered the SBVfT but only after the controversial first commercial and even then, it was more about the group itself and its message. IIRC, their first press conference pretty much went unreported. In each of the cases you sited, there was little or no follow-on. Any revelations were left hanging and no one saw fit to dig deeper. We had John Kerry saying he would release his records yet the form 180 still remains unsigned.

No, on a comparative basis, there was no investigation of John Kerry's military service, not even to clear him! And why do you think that might be? IMHO it is because the articles you mention, the SBVfT commercials, the Nightline trip to Potemkin, even Kerry's own statements gave clear indications that there was a problem and that further investigation could only lead to trouble.

[Viking2002]

They forgot to mention that critics also question the indefensible refusal to conclude that the documents were forgeries.

It's beyond indefensible; it's delusional. It also shows that they haven't absorbed one iota of wisdom from this affair, regardless of Gunga Dan's oblique statement of contrition.

[knuthom]

I firmly believe if they found something about Kerry and his past, they'd be rushing to get that on the air, too."

If she "firmly believes" that, she is living in a fantasy world. We don't have to imagine what CBS would have done with information about Kerry's past. There was plenty, thanks to the Swift-vets, and CBS never seriously investigated.

[Landru]

The MSM quislings along with academia made a conscious decision back around the time the Sink Emperor stole Its way into office that *they* were together going to stand this nation on its head by changing our very reality, our sense of right & wrong, values by any means necessary regardless the number of their own who'd inevitably fall along the way.
Their agenda would be advanced up to & until its conclusion come hell or high water for they knew from the very beginning this was an actual -- albeit subtle in most instances -- "war".

That's all the *findings* of this laughable *report* tells me, my friend.
We really didn't need SeeBS' self appointed quislings to *verify* that, did we?

The conclusion's inescapable.

...it's business as usual with the MSM.