How CBS' Big Story Fell Apart

Los Angeles Times ^ | Jan 16, 2005 | James Rainey and Scott Gold

[John Jorsett]

Dan Rather was on the run, chasing big stories from New York to Florida to Texas and back to CBS headquarters in Manhattan. In less than a week: The Republican National Convention. A deadly hurricane. An interview for a blockbuster CBS investigation. Former President Clinton's open-heart surgery.

[snip]

Rather, 73, recalled somewhat vaguely that he had heard from his star producer that Burkett was a "straight-talking West Texan" with a reputation as a "truth teller." Had he turned to Google, though, the CBS anchorman would have found stories painting Burkett as something quite different: a highly controversial and disgruntled retired military man who had led the media astray before.

But Rather relied on the research of that producer, Mary Mapes, as both put their trust in Burkett. That fateful convergence helped produce a terribly flawed report that said President Bush shirked his military duty, a story that would backfire and cost Mapes and three others at CBS their jobs, while tarnishing Rather's storied career.

[snip]

How did it happen?

In a series of interviews and in the 224 pages of the independent panel's report, a portrait emerges of what is an inherently messy business — a television news operation "crashing" to quickly land a big story. The description of breathless news- hounds on the hunt might have been drawn from any of the nation's big newsrooms, were it not for a series of troubling patterns that ultimately crippled the CBS production, including: a glaring inattention to alternative points of view; the pronounced detachment of top news managers; and, especially, an extreme reliance on just one trusted individual to get the story right.

[jriemer]

It seems to me, that Presidential Election fraud on a massive scale damages a great many people, corporations, institutions, political parties and campaign donors. I realize those aren't your standard legal arguments, but this is not a standard legal case. Use of the media on such a massive scale is tantamount to an attempt to overthrow the US Government with a band of "Jack Boot Thugs."

The voting public maybe indirectly affected by CBS's actions but damaging GWB, not us, was were not the intent of airing that report. GWB is the only party with direct, personal damage and even then, he has a hard case to make considering he's a public figure.

And yes, the CBS is expecting that GWB does the "new tone" thing so that they can "slime another day". Barring that, they will use the legal system and their MSM cohorts to protect themselves from the consequences of their political acts.

[foolscap]

I have not heard anything about Burkett since the election. Does anyone know what is happening with him since the time the story aired and now?

[hosepipe]

The POT calling the Kettle BLACK....

[Drango]

...Mapes, whose salary was pegged at $200,000 to $300,000...

OK, this was news and of some interest to me.

[bitt]

thanks...saved that as an html...

[Eastbound]

Excellent summary.

[Phsstpok]

Drango posted:

Good post, but Yawnnnnnnnnn....Nothing new in this article so why did the LATimes waste the ink? It's a rehash of what's been said ad nauseam for the last week or so.

and dirtboy replied:

It's all part of the MSM whitewash cycle.

Absolutely 100% correct.

This piece is all about excusing CBS in general and Dan Rather in particular.

Dan Rather was on the run, chasing big stories from New York to Florida to Texas and back to CBS headquarters in Manhattan. In less than a week: The Republican National Convention. A deadly hurricane. An interview for a blockbuster CBS investigation. Former President Clinton's open-heart surgery....Rather relied on the research of that producer, Mary Mapes, as both put their trust in Burkett.

Who could ever think that Dan Rather, sainted Dan Rather, the man who "got" Nixon and "fearlessly confronted" the EVIL George H W Bush about Iran-Contra, of doing anything biased?  It wasn't his fault.  He trusted Bill Burkett. 

a portrait emerges of what is an inherently messy business — a television news operation "crashing" to quickly land a big story. The description of breathless news- hounds on the hunt might have been drawn from any of the nation's big newsrooms

Yep, it's just that nasty pressure of business (they call it "messy" but they mean "evil" - all business is evil).

[EagleUSA]

If they keep up the denial, it keeps them from having to come up with solutions. They only solutions available will require them to overhaul their party platform and hell will freeze over before that happens.
======
You have nailed it. The denial for them is recognizing their lies as their reality. They are good at that -- in fact it is the essence of their whole utopian, valueless, narcissistic existence.

[Cosmo]

And doesn't McCain Feingold prohibit campaigns from running ads within 60 days of an election that challenge media reports? I had thought I read this somewhere.

[ultima ratio]

The Los Angeles Times, along with the Washington Post today, has no problem making excuses. To them the attempt to bring down a President on election-eve with a bogus story based on fraudulent documents was no big deal, just a kind of minor snafu. What WAS a big deal was that Bush as a young pilot thirty years ago may have cut some corner. Never mind that his opponent had sided with the enemy during wartime and had phonied up his military record--nobody they respected was interested in THAT.

[Petruchio]

while tarnishing Rather's storied career.

storied career???? Yup. One tall Tale after another!

[185JHP]

They were getting rid of the F102, a flawed craft...

[ghostrider]

The voting public maybe indirectly affected by CBS's actions but damaging GWB, not us, was were not the intent of airing that report.

I am certainly no lawyer and definitely do not know the fine points of barrister debates. However, If CBS fraudulently attacked a US Presidential Candidate, then they attacked the US system of Government and each and every US citizen and every entity in the US. I would argue that GWB's personal damage is far less than the damage to the US Government and each of its citizens. Likewise, I would argue that the personal damage to GWB is far less important than the damage inflicted upon the country and its citizens. Clearly, the media oligopoly is in a position to influence people in a way not available to the the people. The power and impact of an oligopoly media is like that of a large military force. The few in control of an oligopoly media can misuse their power just as effectively as the few in charge of a military force. I believe that CBS intentionally and fraudulently attempted to use its oligopoly power to interfere with the US Election and should be held accountable for an attempted American Coupe and should be held accountable for individual damages to each American citizen and each American entity.

[ghostrider]

Right on target! We need to keep hammering away and not let this die. The oligopoly news media attempted an American Coupe.

[Lancey Howard]

One little problem. Thornburg works for CBS ... he is their lawyer. And if he finds bias on the part of the network, he has opened up his own client to litigation.

Yep.

"The Panel" was apparently directed to whitewash the scandal because if they had reached the same crystal-clear conclusion as everybody else - - that political bias was the reason that CBS used forged military documents to try to fix a national election - - then there would be no way for CBS to avoid a criminal investigation and no way for the Justice Department to look the other way.

The report was, in fact, carefully crafted to shield the network from further investigation (and prosecution). In too-clever-by-half fashion, all aspects of the report which did not deal with the forgeries and CBS's political agenda were beefed up to try to make the report look "hard-hitting", "devastating", "crushing" etc. To add a nice finishing touch, CBS fired a few hapless underlings (while stammering through lame excuses for why they gave Rather and Heyward a pass) in order to further show everybody just how "serious" they were.

No wonder Heyward's promise of a full and thorough investigation and report in "weeks, not months" took nearly four months to produce - - there was a mountain of careful parsing and legal work involved in crafting the whitewash.

Nobody's buying, of course, but the dirty work was handled with brazen aplomb. There's really nothing in the report that Justice can get its hands around. And that was the idea from the beginning.