The Small Matter of Proof

Opinion Journal ^ | January 12, 2005 | Dorothy Rabinowitz

[billorites]

The Independent Review Panel's conclusions concerning CBS's "60 Minutes" report on George Bush's National Guard Service was a long time in coming--not long enough to dull memories of that debacle, or the bitterness of CBS staff bearing the heaviest burden of blame for it. Mary Mapes, producer of the Sept. 8 segment, who was fired outright--three others accountable for the program, one of them a longtime executive, were asked for their resignations--issued a statement Monday night, accusing CBS chairman Leslie Moonves of "vitriolic scapegoating," which, she said, shocked her. Mr. Moonves, it appears, was also shocked--in particular, he told the press that same day, at the CBS team's investigative failures.

The first matter to leap out at readers of the report would be its refusal to deliver judgments on certain questions. Chief among these: the matter of whether the Bush National Guard broadcast had been motivated by political bias. The report's authors--Dick Thornburgh, former U.S. attorney general, and Louis D. Boccardi, former head of the Associated Press--concluded they had no basis for such a finding.

The subject chewed up considerable airtime Monday night as pundits, roundtable guests and plenty of other people wondered how such indicators as producer Mary Mapes's five-year pursuit of the National Guard story--zeal of this sort doesn't come along every day--could have been overlooked, in this regard, or explained, as the report does, simply as a matter of a producer having waited, all those years, for the right proof. The producer thus described as one who had cautiously refrained from going forward with that story without adequate proof is, after all, the same Ms. Mapes who, a few months ago, gave false assurances about the reliability of her chief source and committed offenses against fairness and accuracy in order to get the segment on the air.

[lawdude]

That was no investigation. That was a whitewash. Paid for by CBS and conducted by their own staff. The conclusions in no way correlate to the findings which are conveniently hidden in footnotes and subtle phrases.

The facts show convincingly that the story (fable) was done as a hit piece (probably by the CBS News staff but that was not shown). The prime mover, Mary Mapes, has a five year hate going for the Bushes. She personally worked on this specific story for at least four years.

The investigators concluded there was evidence of bias or political motive. CRAP! There is more circumstantial evidence of bias and political motive than there was that Scott was involved in the disappearance of Lacy.

These "investigators should themselves be investigated. And by the feds, for assisting in the various crimimal acts committed by CBS in this whole mess.

Dan. Slink softly and quietly into the night.
Les. YOU TOO.
FCC. Shut the bastards down!

[lawdude]

Pardon me.
concluded there was evidence of bias or political motive. SHOULD BE
concluded there was NO evidence of bias or political motive.

[nikos1121]

This is just the start of it. I think the four that were fired will sue for wrongful termination of employment. Even if they have no legal grounds they will be paid just to keep them quiet.

Anyone who has read or heard parts of the Thornburgh report will see that basically Rather tried to cover his @ss and let the others below him take the fall. He also used his influence to circumvent normal journalist reporting.

I therefore am suggesting that we coin a few new phrases in the aftermath of Rathergate.

1. The Dan Rather Syndrome

The Dan Rather Syndrome. A pervasive attitude in one's work environment where the boss often has his subordinates take the blame for any of his (or her) wrong doing so as to cover his own @ss.

For example:

"My boss has Dan Rather Syndrome. He let two of us take the hit for his screw up on those mutual funds."

2. danrathered.

dan-rath'-erred: verb 1. to be let go to cover the incompetent missteps taken by a superior. 2. using one's influence to overturn the will of a majority of people.


Example:

"My boss danrathered me. He let me take the fall for his blunder that cost us the Anderson account."

Let this be Dan Rather's legacy.

nikos

[drt1]

"Dan Rather, too, continues to believe in the authenticity of the documents on the ground, as he told the panel, that no one provided evidence the documents were not authentic."

Danny boy, even with your biased, opportunistic approach to journalism even you know that the standard is Proof of the authenticity of the documents BEFORE going to air. What a nuanced, newspeak crock! (As I've said too many times about this)

[laishly]

This was NOT an "independent" commission. Thornburgh's law firm was retained by SeeBS and had an attorney-client obligation. I'm sure that the network executives, possibly even Rather, reviewed and passed on several drafts of the report before agreeing to the final version, which left out any finding of bias or the fact that the alleged memos were forgeries.

[KMC1]

There WAS a political agenda - the report said there was none...In addition...where are the emails from Rather and Mapes on the evolution of the story. RAW materials should have been disclosed in the fine print on this report. The fact that NONE were disclosed tells me that CBS did NOT learn its lesson...

[Mr. K]

You make a good point- Ted Baxter- I mean Dan Rather says is has not been show proof they were fake? The proof should be that they were AUTHENTIC and BEFORE they went to air with them.

If Ted- I maen Dan still is not convince that rpoportional spaced font with superscript TH was not availanble in the 70's then he is too stupid to be a journalist.

[Lancey Howard]

There will be, in our future, other stories like the one that gave birth to this drama--investigations driven by zeal, political and otherwise, devoid of proofs, reported by journalists interested only in testimony supportive of their charges.

The more important question is HOW MANY lives, reputations, and careers HAVE ALREADY been maliciously destroyed over the decades by sloppy, partisan "journalists" like Mapes and Rather and the rest of that ilk who used forgeries and lying witnesses to get a story on the air? We will never know.

[calex59]

We all know that the docs are fake. Several experts proved beyong a doubt that they were done on MS word with a times roman font. These guys are typical liberals. Bring out a fake report to prove that, while not exactly the right thing to do, they were really not such bad guys after all! They have not heard the end of this.

[PolishProud]

Another term should be included in your lexicon, "a dan rather moment."

Recently I used this term to challenge a Seattle Intelligence reporter. He wrote a general story regarding voter fraud, but only quoted a Republican voter's admission of fraud giving readers the idea that voter fraud in the Wash governor's race was a GOP's franchise.

[ReadyNow]

Which case is stronger: that the documents are forged and CBS has a political agenda, or that AIDS is caused by HIV and is spread heterosexually?

[nikos1121]

this is good! i like it.. :-)

nikos

[Damifino]

Which case is stronger: that the documents are forged and CBS has a political agenda, or that AIDS is caused by HIV and is spread heterosexually?

Huh??

[hosepipe]

[ "My boss danrathered me. He let me take the fall for his blunder that cost us the Anderson account." ]

To be DanRather'ed and then smoozed by Rabinowitz'ing double talk out the door is the greatest insult..

After all, Dot Rabinowitz is the Rino exposed by the leanest, meanest Rino exposer of all time.. Ann Coulter.. to become not toast but wet toast.. Picking up one of her columns is, well, a hand full.. Dot is a legend in her own mind with all the patromony of a Tasmanian devil.. A democrat with a horn rubber banded to her nose in an attempt to appear as a RINO to hang out with elephants..

Coulter on the other hand is the real thing, a genuine intelligent well rounded mugwump.. and the leanest, meanest, example of a bull sperm inspector political veternary has ever seen.. Dot Rabinowitz is delusional.. and trashed Anns book "TREASON" without ever reading it first..

[Inwoodian]

I agree with you totally. This is a matter of burden of proof. It is akin to a civil trial. Only by meeting the burden of proving the authenticity of a document does the burden shift to the side opposed to it to debunk it. No proof of authenticity- no burden shift. The document is deemed of no probative value.

[woodb01]

Yep, 'dnC'BS is slowly collapsing. And none too soon. It will be interesting to see how long they survive amid the onslaught of their competitors looking to grab some market share from them... Les Moonves and Andrew Hayward are in total denial about the longer range impacts of this mess.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re-Designed ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com