Rathergate Report Whitewash
The Rathergate report by Dick Thornburgh's panel is out from CBS. Three executives and the producer, Mary Mapes, have been fired at CBS as a result. But Rather was not "fired," and the report is essentially a whitewash on the three main issues:
1. Were the documents fake?
Although the report includes an appendix that basically lays out facts that would be sufficient for any jury in the country to conclude that the documents were fraudulently created on a contemporary computer, and could not have been created on a 1970 typewriter, the report refuses to state the obvious conclusion in so many words. CBS felt justified in going to air in the midst of a Presidential election with a story that concluded on much much shakier evidence that President Bush had gotten preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard, and even Mapes herself in the eye of the storm in September 2004 only said that the documents were authentic by a "preponderance of the evidence," which lawyers understand means that it's 51-49 that they were real. But now the CBS report needs, apparently indisputable, 100% dead solid perfect evidence before they can conclude what everyone already knows... that the documents were fakes? Not fair.
2. Did CBS, Rather and Mapes have a political agenda?
The report concludes in a weasel-ly manner that the panel lacked evidence sufficient to reach a conclusion on the issue of whether CBS, Rather and Mapes had a political agenda to attack President Bush. Not surprisingly, CBS has issued a statement that takes advantage of the reports wishy-washy language, stating that it is gratified that the report concluded that CBS didn't have a political agenda. Of course the two statements are not the same thing, but the refusal of the panel to state the obvious permitted CBS to declare victory.
Come on. Anyone who isn't biased should be able to look at the CBS coverage, not just of the Killian memos story, but throughout the campaign, and conclude that CBS is a network devoted to furthering liberal Democratic positions. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that, just as I can't see why the New York Times can't be the liberal paper for the New York area. It used to be that a city would have two partisan papers, one liberal and one conservative. That's okay in my book... so long as no one confuses them with "objective" journalism. But the problem with CBS, the Times, etc., is that they do try to argue that they are objective journalists. They're not.
All you need to know about CBS' bias you can learn by asking yourself the following questions. Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former member of the TANG, comes forward to give information about a Presidential candidate who happens to be a Republican, and CBS goes to air with it practically immediately. Meanwhile, 250 or so former sailors on Vietnam Swift Boats come forward with information about a Presidential candidate who happens to be a Democrat, and CBS aired... well, nothing at all.
If the panel's purpose was to reform CBS so that this sort of thing won't happen again, it utterly failed to fulfill its charter, because until CBS realizes that it has a systemic bias against conservatives, it is always going to fall prey to the kind of smear that Burkett planted.
3. Did CBS coordinate with the Kerry campaign?
This is the most important question. CBS, a huge corporation with immense power in our society, gave what amounted to an immense in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign through free air time for a vicious and false attack on President Bush. The evidence suggests that the Killian memos story was timed precisely to coincide with a series of attack ads by the Kerry campaign (the ads that aired under the heading, "Fortunate Son"). This is a scandal, and potentially a crime. The panel whiffs on the question.
Powerline, which did more than anyone else to bring down Rather and break the Rathergate story, has provided a must-read analysis of the Thornburgh report.
1. Were the documents fake?
Although the report includes an appendix that basically lays out facts that would be sufficient for any jury in the country to conclude that the documents were fraudulently created on a contemporary computer, and could not have been created on a 1970 typewriter, the report refuses to state the obvious conclusion in so many words. CBS felt justified in going to air in the midst of a Presidential election with a story that concluded on much much shakier evidence that President Bush had gotten preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard, and even Mapes herself in the eye of the storm in September 2004 only said that the documents were authentic by a "preponderance of the evidence," which lawyers understand means that it's 51-49 that they were real. But now the CBS report needs, apparently indisputable, 100% dead solid perfect evidence before they can conclude what everyone already knows... that the documents were fakes? Not fair.
2. Did CBS, Rather and Mapes have a political agenda?
The report concludes in a weasel-ly manner that the panel lacked evidence sufficient to reach a conclusion on the issue of whether CBS, Rather and Mapes had a political agenda to attack President Bush. Not surprisingly, CBS has issued a statement that takes advantage of the reports wishy-washy language, stating that it is gratified that the report concluded that CBS didn't have a political agenda. Of course the two statements are not the same thing, but the refusal of the panel to state the obvious permitted CBS to declare victory.
Come on. Anyone who isn't biased should be able to look at the CBS coverage, not just of the Killian memos story, but throughout the campaign, and conclude that CBS is a network devoted to furthering liberal Democratic positions. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that, just as I can't see why the New York Times can't be the liberal paper for the New York area. It used to be that a city would have two partisan papers, one liberal and one conservative. That's okay in my book... so long as no one confuses them with "objective" journalism. But the problem with CBS, the Times, etc., is that they do try to argue that they are objective journalists. They're not.
All you need to know about CBS' bias you can learn by asking yourself the following questions. Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former member of the TANG, comes forward to give information about a Presidential candidate who happens to be a Republican, and CBS goes to air with it practically immediately. Meanwhile, 250 or so former sailors on Vietnam Swift Boats come forward with information about a Presidential candidate who happens to be a Democrat, and CBS aired... well, nothing at all.
If the panel's purpose was to reform CBS so that this sort of thing won't happen again, it utterly failed to fulfill its charter, because until CBS realizes that it has a systemic bias against conservatives, it is always going to fall prey to the kind of smear that Burkett planted.
3. Did CBS coordinate with the Kerry campaign?
This is the most important question. CBS, a huge corporation with immense power in our society, gave what amounted to an immense in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign through free air time for a vicious and false attack on President Bush. The evidence suggests that the Killian memos story was timed precisely to coincide with a series of attack ads by the Kerry campaign (the ads that aired under the heading, "Fortunate Son"). This is a scandal, and potentially a crime. The panel whiffs on the question.
Powerline, which did more than anyone else to bring down Rather and break the Rathergate story, has provided a must-read analysis of the Thornburgh report.
posted by PDB at 2:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home