CBS Gets Burned at the Stake . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Accountability

Washington Post/Cohen

<CLIP>

It took no less a sage than President Bush to put the firing of four high-level CBS News employees in perspective: "CBS said they would act. They did. And I hope their actions are such that this doesn't happen again." This from the man who fired not a single person in his entire administration for getting nearly everything wrong about Iraq and taking the nation to war for reasons that did not exist or were downright specious. Lucky for Bush he's only the president of the United States and not the head of CBS.

Let us call the roll: George Tenet, who assured the president that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? A graceful retirement and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Don Rumsfeld, who approved a battle plan of such brilliance that a 30-day war against a weak Third World country is still going on and shows no sign of ending? He stays in the Cabinet.

Condi Rice, the national security adviser who allowed the president to tell the world of Iraq's nuclear weapons program when it had none whatsoever? She is nominated to become secretary of state.

Vice President Cheney, who insisted against all evidence and with no evidence that Iraq was fast becoming a nuclear power, and who maintained that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? He stays on the ticket and remains a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Bush's observation to the Wall Street Journal is the deepest wisdom of a man who has always been protected from his own mistakes and failures, whether it's the oil business gone bust or a wayward youth rescued by equal measures of religion and family connections. His is the privileged view of privilege itself -- that others should do what he would not. For all his pretense of aw-shucks ordinariness, Bush's inner Yale sometimes oozes out. Some people should pay for their mistakes. Some people never have to.

Those who paid at CBS happen to be some of that network's best people. They made a mistake, no doubt about it. They had professional lapses. Again, no doubt about it. But most of them had long and distinguished careers. One of them, in fact, helped break the story about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. They deserved to be reprimanded for putting an apparently bogus (at least the documents were) report on the air. They did not deserve to be fired.

Liars get fired. None of the CBS four lied. Plagiarists get fired. None of the four plagiarized. Incompetents get fired -- and one mistake over the course of an entire career is not proof of incompetence. All these people deserved another chance. Bush would understand that. He always gets another chance.

As others have pointed out, Bush won the election. But even before that, CBS had gotten a bad case of the shakes. It bagged "The Reagans," a biopic that drew the ire of conservatives, not bothering to snip out the offending scenes or in some other way salvage the film. The network lateraled it over to Showtime, the virtually unwatched cable channel owned -- as is CBS -- by Viacom.

Later, "60 Minutes" killed a report about whether the Bush administration had relied on false documents in making the case that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. A CBS spokesman said it would have been "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election" -- a statement just plain stunning in its implications. First of all, it was late September -- a full month before the election -- and, second, isn't affecting elections what can happen when journalists do their jobs? I mean, are we supposed to withhold the truth because, in addition to making you free, it might make you change your vote? This was a dark day for CBS and for all journalism.

Now it is even darker. The capitulation to Bush and the GOP is nearly complete. After the firings, the White House voiced its approval. So did Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who, keeping a firm grip on his emotions, did not suggest President Bush take note and do some firings himself. All over this great country, wherever right-wing pundits pund and bloggers blog, a chorus of gleeful approval was raised to the heavens. But in praising accountability, they were unaccountably silent about -- and here let me quote from the CBS report about what went wrong -- the "myopic zeal" of administration figures who got everything wrong, still do and have never been called to account for it. They had everything wrong but the target. It wasn't Iraq that was the pushover; it was CBS.


 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Rather and his crew air information that was verified by the woman who wrote the original memo, but they get fried because the copy they had wasn't a copy of the original.

Bushco attacks Iraq using fake evidence, and botches the job miserably at that, and not one person is held accountable.

They even get medals.

Go figure.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Pretty sad they are losing their jobs, and their missing out on all the bribe money from bushco too...
This'll learn em not to be bushco's shill....
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,423
47,769
136
It's flat out disturbing how hypocritical this admin is, reminds me of Bush speaking out against 'legacy admissions' for universities...exactly what was able to get him into Yale. Damn it's depressing. :(
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Oh wait...Bush *did* fire people. People who dared to...<GASP>...tell the truth!!

Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey to name two.
 

Centinel

Senior member
Dec 21, 2004
409
0
0
So no comment on the fact the documents were forged?

...or do you guys subscribe to the "well the document was forged by the story was true!" camp?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,423
47,769
136
Twas a sleazy affair no doubt, but in my mind it pales in comparison to acts like the reward for incompetence Bush gave Condi Rice. "Birds of a feather..." and all that I suppose.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: kage69
Twas a sleazy affair no doubt, but in my mind it pales in comparison to acts like the reward for incompetence Bush gave Condi Rice. "Birds of a feather..." and all that I suppose.
Yeah, it's not like 1,400 soldiers were killed and 10,500 injured and $200 billion spent because of that CBS story.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
:cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie:

A bakers dozen for our glorious leader.

A 'Bakers Dozen' is thirteen - you're one short.

You evil cookie and vote counting liberal traitor! :shocked:
MODS! I think there is a cookie bias in here! Help I'm being opressed!
 

Centinel

Senior member
Dec 21, 2004
409
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: kage69
Twas a sleazy affair no doubt, but in my mind it pales in comparison to acts like the reward for incompetence Bush gave Condi Rice. "Birds of a feather..." and all that I suppose.
Yeah, it's not like 1,400 soldiers were killed and 10,500 injured and $200 billion spent because of that CBS story.

I thought this post was on the Dan Rather scandal, not the war in Iraq.

Stick to the topic please, there are plenty of other threads about Bush, Rice, Iraq, etc.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: kage69
Twas a sleazy affair no doubt, but in my mind it pales in comparison to acts like the reward for incompetence Bush gave Condi Rice. "Birds of a feather..." and all that I suppose.
Yeah, it's not like 1,400 soldiers were killed and 10,500 injured and $200 billion spent because of that CBS story.

I thought this post was on the Dan Rather scandal, not the war in Iraq.

Stick to the topic please, there are plenty of other threads about Bush, Rice, Iraq, etc.
There are already other threads on this topic.
 

Centinel

Senior member
Dec 21, 2004
409
0
0
Conjur: Ok cool, but could you at least have the courtesy to the original poster to stick to the topic at hand?

Out of courtesy at least?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
CBS' Cowardice And Conflicts Behind Purge

Network's Craven Back-Down on Bush Draft Dodge Report Sure to Get a Standing Rove-ation at White House

By Greg Palast
ICH

01/11/07 "ICH" -- "Independent" my ass. CBS' cowardly purge of five journalists who exposed George Bush's dodging of the Vietnam War draft was done under cover of what the network laughably called an "Independent Review Panel."

The "panel" was just two guys as qualified for the job as they are for landing the space shuttle: Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi.

Remember Dickie Thornburgh? He was on the Bush 41 Administration's payroll. His grand accomplishment as Bush's Attorney General was to whitewash the investigation of the Exxon Valdez Oil spill, letting the oil giant off the hook on big damages. Thornburgh's fat pay as counsel to Kirkpatrick &amp; Lockhart, the Washington law-and-lobbying outfit, is substantially due to his job as a Bush retainer. This is the kind of stinky conflict of interest that hardly suggests "independent." Why not just appoint Karl Rove as CBS' grand inquisitor and be done with it?

Then there's Boccardi, not exactly a prince of journalism. This is the gent who, as CEO of the Associated Press, spiked his own wire service's exposure of Oliver North and his traitorous dealings with the Ayatollah Khomeini. Legendary AP investigative reporters Robert Parry and Brian Barger found their stories outing the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 stopped by their bosses. They did not know that Boccardi was on those very days deep in the midst of talks with North, participating in the conspiracy.

Today I spoke with Parry at his home in Virginia. He was sympathetic to Boccardi who at the time was trying to spring AP reporter Terry Anderson held hostage in Iran. But to do so, Boccardi joined, unwittingly, in a criminal conspiracy to trade guns for hostages. He then spiked his own news agency's investigation of it. Parry later discovered a 1986 email from North to John Poindexter in which North notes that Boccardi "is supportive of our terropism (sic) policy" and wants to keep the story "quiet." Poindexter was indicted, then pardoned. Boccardi was not, and there is no indication he knew he was abetting a crime. But the AP demoted journalist Barger and forced him to quit for -- the offense of trying to report the biggest story of the decade. This hardly gives Mr. Spike the qualification to pass judgment on working journalists.

And who are the journalists whom CBS has burned at the corporate stake? The first lined up for career execution is '60 Minutes' producer Mary Mapes. Besides the Bush draft dodge story, Mapes produced the exposé of the torture at Abu Ghraib when other networks had the same material and buried it.

I admit to a soft spot for Mapes. Four years ago, BBC Television London broadcast my report that Jeb Bush had wrongly purged thousands of African-Americans from the voter rolls, thereby fixing the election for his big brother. CBS Evening News ran away scared from the story, as did ABC and other US networks. This year, when Bush tried to repeat the trick, Mapes wanted to put it on '60 Minutes.' However, after the draft dodge story hullabaloo, that was not going to happen.

And what was the crime committed by Mapes and, let's not forget, Dan Rather, whose career was also toasted by the story?

CBS said, "The Panel found that Mapes ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report -- that President Bush had received special treatment 30 years ago, getting to the [Texas Air National] Guard ahead of many other applicants ?."

Well, excuse me, but that story is stone cold solid, irrefutable, backed-up, sourced, proven to a fare-thee-well. I know, because I'm one of the reporters who broke that story ? way back in 1999, for the Guardian papers of Britain. No one has challenged the Guardian report, or my follow-up for BBC Television, whatsoever, though we've begged the White House for a response from our self-proclaimed "war president."

CBS did not "break" this Chicken-Hawk George story; it's just that Dan Rather, with Mapes' encouragement, found his journalistic soul and the cojones, finally, after 5 years delay, to report it. Did Bush get special treatment to get into the Guard? Baby Bush tested in the 25th percentile out of 100. Yet, he leaped ahead of thousands of other Vietnam evaders because the then-Speaker of the Texas legislature sent a message to General Craig Rose, head of the Guard, to let in Little George and a few other sons of well-placed politicos.

[See some of the documentation at http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/.../draftdodgeblanked.jpg and a clip from the BBC Television report at http://www.gregpalast.com/images/TrailerClips.mov]

Mapes and Rather did make a mistake, citing a memo which could not be authenticated. But let's get serious folks: this "Killian" memo had not a darn thing to do with the story-in-chief -- the President's using his daddy's connections to duck out of Vietnam. The Killian memo was a goofy little addition to the story (not included in my Guardian or BBC reports).

So CBS inquisitors took this minor error and used it to discredit the story and ruin careers of reporters who allowed themselves an unguarded moment of courage. And, crucial to the network's real agenda, this nonsensical distraction allowed the White House to resurrect the fake reputation of George Bush as Vietnam-era top gun.

CBS executives' model was clearly the hatchet job done on BBC news last year by the so-called "Hutton Report." In that case, some used-up lordship viciously attacked the BBC's ballsy uncovering of an official lie: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lord Hutton seized on a minor error by one reporter to attempt to discredit the entire BBC investigation of governmental mendacity.

In Britain, the public stood with the "Beeb." But in my own country, the American press itself, notably the New York Times, has joined in the lynch mob, repeating the allegations against the investigative reporters without any independent verification of the charges whatsoever.

I would note that neither CBS nor the New York Times punished a single reporter for passing on, as hard news, the Bush Administration fibs and whoppers about Saddam Hussein's nuclear and biological weapons programs. Shameful repetitions of propaganda produced no resignations -- indeed, picked up an Emmy or two.

Yes, I believe heads should roll at CBS: those of the "news" chieftains who for five years ignored the screaming evidence about George Bush's dodging the draft during the war in Vietnam.

At the top of the network's craven and dead wrong apology to the President is that cyclopsian CBS eyeball. But I suspect that CBS itself has little interest in eating its own flesh. This vile spike-after-broadcast serves only its master, the owner of CBS, Viacom Corporation.

"From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on?. I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."

That more-than-revealing statement, made weeks before the presidential election, by Sumner Redstone, billionaire honcho of CBS' parent company, wasn't reported on CBS. Why not? Someone should investigate.

Viacom needs the White House to bless its voracious and avaricious need to bust current ownership and trade rules to add to its global media monopoly. Placing the severed heads of reporters who would question the Bush mythology on the White House doorstep will certainly ease the way for Viacom's ambitions.

At the least, at the upcoming inaugural parties, CBS' ruler Redstone can expect that White House occupants will give him a standing Rove-ation.



 

Centinel

Senior member
Dec 21, 2004
409
0
0
That article ignores the problem at hand:

A major news network, supposedly the epitome of factuality and professionalism, used a FORGED document as a centerpiece of a story.


Once again we get the "well lets ignore the fact that the document was forged....BUT THE STORY WAS TRUE!!!"

Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. However, the central fact is that a FORGED document was used as factual support for the story.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
But even the secretary said the information in the document was truthful, regardless as to the authenticity of the document itself.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I guess this proves that it is OK to Lie on TV and Journalism has no honor and no standards as long as you lie and it is in favor of the Democratic view.
 

Centinel

Senior member
Dec 21, 2004
409
0
0
Ok, so you're going to believe the word of secretary that the document was factual even though the document supported was forged?

If the document was forged, dont you think it's not too far of a stretch to assume the secretary was lying?

I mean if a guy gives me a forged document, i'm not going to be inclined to believe a single damn thing he says....but that's just me.

 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
cbs was in the wrong...but the sad part about this is that now the right, and most everyone else will consider the questions that the story brought up moot. the subject of the presidents service record now beggars speech.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Centinel
Ok, so you're going to believe the word of secretary that the document was factual even though the document supported was forged?

If the document was forged, dont you think it's not too far of a stretch to assume the secretary was lying?

I mean if a guy gives me a forged document, i'm not going to be inclined to believe a single damn thing he says....but that's just me.
Forged in that it wasn't the original document.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
:cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie:

A bakers dozen for our glorious leader.

A 'Bakers Dozen' is thirteen - you're one short.

You evil cookie and vote counting liberal traitor! :shocked:
MODS! I think there is a cookie bias in here! Help I'm being opressed!

Bring me the head of the lout that shorted me my 13th (and Lucky) Cookie !
The cookie with the 'M' on it !