Monday, September 27, 2004

Politics: I Know What CBS Stands For...

Complete BullShit.

Fire Dan Rather? Screw that, fire the whole damn news department. Anyone associated with this decision needs to find a new line of work:
The Story That Didn’t Run
Here’s the piece that ‘60 Minutes’ killed for its report on the Bush Guard documents
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 5:24 p.m. ET Sept. 22, 2004


In its rush to air its now discredited story about President George W. Bush’s National Guard service, CBS bumped another sensitive piece slated for the same “60 Minutes” broadcast: a half-hour segment about how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

The journalistic juggling at CBS provides an ironic counterpoint to the furor over apparently bogus documents involving Bush’s National Guard service. One unexpected consequence of the network’s decision was to wipe out a chance—at least for the moment—for greater public scrutiny of a more consequential forgery that played a role in building the Bush administration’s case to invade Iraq.

[...] But just hours before the piece was set to air on the evening of Sept. 8, the reporters and producers on the CBS team were stunned to learn the story was being scrapped to make room for a seemingly sensational story about new documents showing that Bush ignored a direct order to take a flight physical while serving in the National Guard more than 30 years ago.

Okay, set aside the complete bungling of the Bush/National Guard memo story and its questionable sources/evidence. What jackass at CBS decided that it was more important to air a basically irrelevant story about a thirty year old string-pulling for George W. Bush, instead of exposing what may be the most damaging blow to the credibility of the Administrations case for the war we are in right now, and soldiers are dying in right now, and the current election can actually effect!!?? Even if both stories were backed up by ironclad, indiputable evidence including video confessions by President Bush, they still chose the wrong story to air. What does it take for people (Terry McAuliffe I'm looking at you) to understand that the the National Guard story is a nice appetizer, but the Niger documents are the fucking main course? This is the story that matters!
“This is like living in a Kafka novel,” said Joshua Micah Marshall, a Washington Monthly contributing writer and a Web blogger who had been collaborating with “60 Minutes” producers on the uranium story. “Here we had a very important, well-reported story about forged documents that helped lead the country to war. And then it gets bumped by another story that relied on forged documents.”

Some CBS reporters, as well as one of the network’s key sources, fear that the Niger uranium story may never run, at least not any time soon, on the grounds that the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents. The network would “be a laughingstock,” said one source intimately familiar with the story.

Heads up, CBS, your network is a laughingstock. Shelving another viable news story because you blew a different one is not going to help you regain credibility. If you don't have the balls to run the Niger story, give it to someone else—or padlock your news department. It's now worthless.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum sums it up perfectly:
So not only was Dan Rather (with an assist from Bill Burkett) responsible for effectively killing the National Guard story for all time, but the resulting debacle has now convinced CBS that they shouldn't air any negative stories about George Bush for the next six weeks — even if they're true. That's some courageous journalism for you.

If this is the liberal media, conservatives can have it.

And Atrios:
One wonders if CBS will realize that two wrongs do not actually make a right. I guess they've bought into the New Journalism, in which the facts themselves are partisan, and thus shouldn't be reported.

AMERICABlog has links and contacts to let CBS know how you feel. Go to the comments (below) to read the email I sent...

7 comments:

Mr Furious said...

Here's the email I sent CBS:

I recently read this disturbing quote in the Newsweek article about your decision to not run the Ed Bradley Niger story:

"Some CBS reporters, as well as one of the network’s key sources, fear that the Niger uranium story may never run, at least not any time soon, on the grounds that the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents. The network would “be a laughingstock,” said one source intimately familiar with the story."

Heads up, CBS, your network is a laughingstock. Shelving another viable news story because you blew a different one is not going to help you regain credibility. Not reporting the facts because the facts appear to be partisan is no way to run a news department. If you don't have the courage to run the Niger story, give it to someone else—or padlock your news department. It is now worthless.

60 Minutes has long been a valuable source of investigative journalism, and regrettably its reputation has been tarnished by the recent events surrounding the Bush memos. But by imposing a self-inflicted "chilling effect" on your own news department, you only serve to hasten the downfall of a once great institution. I hope for the good of CBS News, and more importantly, the good of the American public that depends on you as a news source, you reconsider this decision.

Sincerely,
[me]
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Richard said...

I don't see how the Nigerian document scandal is damaging to the Bush Administration. I mean, it’s not like Bush forged them. We all already know about the intelligence failures- this is just another one of them, and it won’t effect public opinion either way.

Mr Furious said...

I assume you're the Richard from Baseball Crank. If so, welcome...

I don't see how the Nigerian document scandal is damaging to the Bush Administration. I mean, it’s not like Bush forged them.Well, then there's no reason not to run it...

The reason it reflects badly (and deservedly badly) on Bush is because they knew it was false information even back then. Bush had been warned repeatedly and specifically by the CIA not use the Niger claims in speeches or as rationales for the War -- the information was always unreliable and never confirmed, and the forgery was exposed just about as quickly as the Rather memos. I can remember long before the SOTU address that Bush and Cheney were peddling this story even though it was pretty much "inadmissible" as proof -- and wondered whether they'd have the audacity to use it (along with the aluminum tubes). It supported the story they wanted to push, so they used it.

The best defense one can offer for Rather is that he wanted the scoop so badly, he was willing to believe whatever was put in front of him as documentation. The memos supported the story, so he used them without properly (and thouroughly) confirming their authenticity. An important difference to note is that the info in the memos is accurate, even if the actual memo is a re-creation. Since the information is known to be true, it was easier to accept the documents (though still not correct to) at face value. Even the White House read them and accepted them as genuine. There was no reason not to!

Tina Brown (yeah, I know) had a great column speculating on Rather's motivation on this story. It's no excuse, but it's interesting, if not understandable. Maybe pathetic is a better word than understandable.

The other important difference, of course, is that one was a matter of life and death. Thousands of deaths. A matter of international impact and evenually war. Rather is merely shedding light on what has been long understood to be a forgone conclusion about an event of current interest, but no real significance.

The intelligence failure you and so many others like to dismiss as an alibi for Bush's conduct, is not really the point. Yeah, plenty of intel was wrong. but the use of much of the intel was/is the issue. Especially the overemphasis of intel known to be spurious and the discarding of any intel not supporting the agenda of the Administration.

That does reflect badly on Bush. And if demonstrated properly, would have an impact on public opinion. though I remain skeptical there are actually that many people open to too much convincing beyond their current understandings.

Richard said...

When you say "they knew it was false information even back then", are you speaking of the Joe Wilson/Plame situation? Because it's already come out that Joe Wilson told the CIA and the media two completely different stories about his vacation to Africa. The CIA and British intelligence were operating under the assumption that the documents were authentic, because Wilson told them so.

And that brings up another good reason CBS won’t run the story- it would be impossible to tell such a story without including Joe Wilson somewhere in the narrative. The last thing CBS needs right now is to co-opt the arguments of a man who has been so thoroughly discredited.

Mr Furious said...

"Thouroughly discredited" is obviously in the eyes of the beholder. If you consider Wilson thouroughly discredited, what do you consider Cheney? How about Richard Clarke?

As far as Wilson goes, I know there may have been variations between Wilson's CIA report and his book tour, but I don't recall ever reading him giving those documents and the yellocake story a thumbs up.

From what I understand, the CBS story was going to concentrate on debunking the documents, and not on Wilson. He'd be a footnote at best.

The overall point remains the same however. regardless of the surce of the document, whether Wilson lied or anything else -- the CIA told the Administration not to use the info because they didn't consider it reliable. That's the timeline I'd be interested in having exposed. Like the Rather memos, focusing too hard on the paper blurs the content and the context.

Richard said...

Where are you getting the idea that the CIA told the administration the documents were forged? I haven't seen that claim anywhere but here- on your web site- and from the mouth of Joe Wilson. And Wilson's statements were proven false by the bipartisan Senate committee that investigated pre-war intelligence failures:

"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
Joe Wilson is the reason the administration used the documents. You can’t not focus on him when telling this story. He's nothing but a publicity whore and a liar- not the kind of man you should stake your anti-Bush rhetoric on. That would be why the Kerry campaign has separated themselves from this prick.

Mr Furious said...

Whoo hoo! This is now got to be officially the most in-depth debate yet 'round these parts...

What Tenet and the CIA did do was specifically instruct the WH not to use the Niger story in two or three speeches leading up to the SOTU. One in Cincinnati, and I can't remember the others. Not because they had officially debunked any documents, but because they couldn't confirm the info. It was never reliable. In fact, I believe Deputy NSA Stephen Hadley supposedly misplaced the memo for the SOTU.

The speechwriters kept putting in everything, and Tenet kept making them take it out. Tenet blew it by approving the final draft of the address...but he was probably exasperated at that point.

Obviously you're willing to cut the Administration quite a bit of slack, while I will give them none. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the specifics. In the final analysis, if, as you say, Bush can't be tainted by the story, than there is no harm in airing it. Bring it on.