CBS released their internal report today which found that the network did not follow proper journalistic guidelines. 4 employees of relative high level were sent packing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/...ain665727.shtml

For debate:

1. Did the firing of the 4 employees go far enough?

2. Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story?

2. Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story?

lordhelmet here’s a quote from the article you provided.



Assuming that CBS’s motivation was political bias, rather than an attempt to get the “scoop” first in a highly competitive business, taints your entire thread. How does one adequately respond to this thread if they don't necessarily buy the premise of the second question?

Edited to add:

The way the question is worded I would have to give a qualified NO.

The question for debate is whether you buy findings of the internal report. I know full well what the report says, I read it. It put the onus on "scoopsmanship".

That isn't my question for debate. Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story?

Let's be realistic. Any journalist that does not take the time to verify the information used during a Prime Time attack on the incumbent President, deserves to be fired. If we allow people like CBS to either portray information in a less than accurate manner, or worse, intentionally lie to the American public, we've lost all sense of objectivity-regardless of party affilitation.

If this story had been an inaccurate portrayal of John Kerry by Fox, what would the liberal response have been?

I have a very hard time believing that CBS didn't intentionally leave steps out of the process or intentionally mislead their viewers.

Let's leave it to you to define realistic. Isn't it equally realistic to think that CBS stumbled in it's attempt to get there first. This is the same CB that was so careful to check out it's sources on the prison abuse scandal.

I'm not saying one way or the other is accurate, but the way the question is framed loads the question and taints the thread.

I think you inadvertantly made a point for me!
Think about what you said, CBS took the time to break the Prison Abuse Scandal with sheer precision, of course because this was a negative attack on the current administration and would turn public opinion. It was irrefutable.

However, when CBS airs an attack on the President and their gamble turns sour, they use a few scapegoats. Why? Why would they check all of their sources on one hand, then absolve themselves of guilt on the other? I have a guess... and that would be that they had a strong incling that the Guard memos weren't real?? ? Hmmm....
They never thought that someone would come forward and state that these were fabrications...

Well aevans176 this statement is purely conjecture. Were not talking about the two weeks of defending the story, but the original broadcast. It seems one explanation is as good as the other, since we don't really know.

So let me get this straight.

Producers and others fired because they didn’t get their facts straight, no one died no one bled and didn’t cost me anything.

President didn’t get facts straight, many died, maimed, country in debt, and gets reelected.

Crazy world. Yes sir, crazy world.


Would you include radio talk show hosts as a journalist? I do, they inform and attempt to shape opinion. Based on your reasoning Rush Limbaugh should have been fired a thousand times over for the lies, stretched truths, flawed logic and attacks on former incumbent president Clinton.

Oh you say there’s a difference. Your right, we see Mr. Rather for 30 minutes a day and Rush’s show lasts 3 hours a day. And please don’t throw the “Oh, but CBS is a bastion of liberal media” at me. Sure, I guess that’s why it was non stop Monica during the blue dress fiasco days and the shady Arkansas real estate deals. Make no mistake about it, they held no quarter against President Clinton.

Double standard? Sounds like it to me.

Did the firing of the 4 employees go far enough?

They went too far, a bit over the top. I think it’s a sad state of affairs that an independent panel found CBS guilty and recommended the firings, yet we hold our President and Congressmen to a lower standard when they make mistakes.

2. Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story?

If you listened to Rush today, yes.

I almost choked on my water when I read this clip from the article (emphasis mine):


Wow. From the least accountable presidency in the history of this great nation.

You consider them journalists?? They don't even consider themselves journalists! Your entire post read like a thinly veiled assault on talk radio and the administration. I concur that the adminstration needs to be held waaay more accountable than it has been, but to imply that no other body or entity should be responsible is ludicrous.


Again, what does one really have to do with the other in this instance, if you're speaking broadly, then I suppose we shouldn't prosecute anymore criminals until the Bush admin fires some people.

Did the firing of the 4 employees go far enough?
I think it was appropriate. Dan Rather defended these documents with word games instead of just taking responsibility for the mistakes, as the senior member of the Rather news team should have done. That action would have kept what respect I had for him (which was on par with any other network journalist).

Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story?
Although I agree that the question is worded badly for debate purposes, there is no question in my mind that the absolute sloppy fact checking and subsequent cover up was in no doubt politically motivated. They apparently took at face value the word of Burkett, a known Bush hater, without digging deeper into the story (and the font, as it were). CBS and the other networks gave no such latitude to stories, such as the Swifties, that put Bush in a favorable light.

1. Did the firing of the 4 employees go far enough?

I think so, but maybe not. In my light reading on this story it seems that Rather played a figure-head role and that the program or the network continued to defend extraordinarily sloppy journalism.

I could use a heavier hand. Rather is going out too. That may be part of it. Journalism needs a good cuff to the ears. Too much attention has been played to entertainment and the absurd concept of getting the scoop. In this information age, the scoop becomes increasingly irrelevant. Maintaining credibility in a sea of less than credible sources of information should be the premium. I hope CBS or the New York Times or any of the other professional providers of information start learning from their embarrassing stories of forgery, false reports, and plagiarism instead of finding excuses. The present state of journalism and ethics is pathetic but nobody anywhere seems very motivated to address the problem. It increasingly blurs the line between the Frankens, Moores, Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world and the world of journalism. And I put the blame on the news providers not the above named pundits.

2. Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story?

I don't buy the question. They rushed to get a story to reveal a scandal and got duped. The value of getting a break on such a good story is motive enough. They were trying to pass NBC and find an edge. There may have been some animosity toward the president or his policies among the CBS news staff, but they wanted a scandal and rushed with a source that was bogus. Sloppy and stupid, words increasingly associated with executive decisions made by supposed legitimate news sources.

CBS deserves a long slow stew in marginal credibility land. I don't think a conspiracy will be revealed of a plot to provide fake news to damage the president. But those searching for a vast left wing media conspiracy will have their fears confirmed.

I guess I'll get around to answering my own questions.

1. Did the firing of the 4 employees go far enough? No. The front line people should have been let go but the upper management was ultimately responsible for the content of the show. Heyward and Rather should have been sent packing. The defense of Heyward is that he "asked the right question", but did he? Why didn't he personally look into the details of such a politically loaded story with such blatant timing before letting it run? All accounts of the Watergate scandal showed that the top brass at the Washington Post had to be utterly convinced by Wood-stein before allowing those stories to run. Heyward and Rather were both sloppy. They hurt their company and put it's survival in jeopardy. They hurt the stockholders of Viacom. They should have been held accountable too.

2. Did CBS cover up the political bias that was a primary motivation behind the story? Of course they did. CBS has a long history of liberal bias and this was the example that finally blew up in their face. Mapes, Rather, and Heyward didn't really question the merits of the story, only the "technical details". Mapes in direct contact with the Kerry camp prior to the story? That's not political bias??? You MUST be kidding. This is one of the worst media scandals in my lifetime and I hope it exposes the institutional bias that has long been a part of CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post. They have forgotten that there is a difference between journalism and editorializing and have managed to conveniently merge the two. Liberal critics will point to "fox". But fox is popular precisely because it broke out of the liberal orthodox mold of the "elite media" and managed to give a voice to those who are routinely stifled by them.

Just because they don’t write for a newspaper/magazine doesn’t exempt them from journalist status. Again, both report news, often with a slant, to inform and shape opinion.

The work of Dan Rather and his recently unemployed coworkers wasn’t dispensed through print media, the Websters definition of journalist would exclude this group. Any individual in this position, weather their trade reaches you in the paper box or over the air waves should be held to the same standards.

Not to take the thread off track but I think it’s important for this debate so I’ll throw this back to you and ask what’s the difference between a traditional journalist (as defined by Websters and dictionary.com) and TV journalist? One step further, what’s the difference between a TV journalist and a radio journalist? I’ll save you the time: nothing.




Maybe my British friends are right, we just don’t seem to get irony.

I was not implying that we shouldn’t prosecute any criminals, I don’t see how you arrived at that conclusion. DTOM, who has the largest impact on your life: Dan Rather and CBS, or Dubya and Congress? My point was those who impact our lives the most, those who represent this country, appear to have lesser standards for their professional behavior. But I can tell you one big difference between the two: as hard as I try I can’t find the button on the remote to change administrations, but it’s not a problem with Dan and crew.

I find it equally appalling from the party who espouses “individual accountability” as one of their battle cries but fails miserably to hold themselves to their own beliefs. Good to see you're in the same boat.

Edited to add the following:
Talk about timing, just got back from a lunch errand and Rush opened his show with an apology (nearly ran off the road).

On yesterday’s show he was yaking about Mary Mapes, producer of the piece and was fired from CBS, who had been offered a job with the Special Projects team at PBS. From there he ranted about how the Lib’s are playing a shell game, moving the attackers from one liberal media outlet to another in order to continue these attacks on this president and his administration. He questioned her integrity on and on and on…. Typical Rush.

Well, it appears this wasn’t true after all. He read an email from a PBS producer that stated there was absolutely no truth to the matter. Where were the fact checkers? Where are the rolling heads? Where's the accountability?

You've saved me no time, because I don't agree with your premise from the beginning. A radio or television personality who takes calls and discusses issues with his or her opinion at the fore is not a journalist. By your definition, Dr. Laura is now a journalist. A journalist is one who presents hard news with theoretically no bias, just the facts. Not one radio host I listen to has ever claimed to be a journalist, in fact they deny the definition......Rather on the other hand takes enormous pride, I'm sure, in his exalted anchor/journalist status.
And if you are fair with your disdain for the likes of Rush, then surely Air America need to be censured for their journalistic conduct.......

I’m not going to split hairs over the definition of a journalist, by definition only print media qualifies; you’ve just decided to modify your definition which is certainly your prerogative. But I have to ask you: if Dan Rather were a radio talk show host and he and his producers made the same mistakes, he’s off the hook?

Wow. That my friend is a dangerous definition you carry with you.


I’ve never heard Air American so I can’t really comment. However, if they choose the methods of Rush then yes, I would share the disdain. You may never meet a Democrat as critical of his own party as me. In a 2003 state representative race I personally knew the Dem candidate and the rock he crawled out from under. I voted the other way.

I know that the report did not conclude that political bias drove the story. But I disagree with that assessment. I find it hard to believe that political bias did not play a huge role in what transpired.

I understand that journalists are driven by the desire to get the "scoop". However, I am not convinced they would have been quite so remiss in checking their sources if the "scoop" had been one to discredit Kerry. I just don't buy that their negligent conduct was devoid of political bias.

I am not sure how exactly "political bias" could be proven. Although the contact that CBS had with the Kerry campaign comes pretty darn close to showing proof of political bias in my opinion.