CBS and its Documents
Well, now that CBS has announced that they are unable to verify the documents, it is time to take a reasoned look back at all that happened. Howard Kurtz wrote a good wrap-up about what happened step by step in the Washington Post Sunday. But I hope to try and put this in a little bit of perspective:
It seems to me pretty obvious that CBS was had. They obviously ran with a story before it was fully vetted. Many are alleging they did this simply out of liberal bias and the fact they "wanted" the story to be true. The fact is, they do have a big bias. The break-the-news-and-get-the-big-scoop bias. The need-to-be-essential-to-the-network bias. A lot of these folks are under a tremendous amount of pressure to keep their jobs. Network news is struggling more than ever to be relevant in these days of 24-hour cable news, online newspapers, online magazines, and blogs. Personally, I never ever watch the evening news. I get the news I care about faster and easier on the web.
So obviously, they got carried away. Also, they did want the documents to be real because it confirmed what they already thought they knew. Bush did not take his physical. He did not fulfill his commitment as he had agreed to. This is undisputed by anyone at the White House. (This is also, I think, irrelevant to anything at this point.) So when CBS got these documents, what was in them seemed to make so much sense that they were ready to believe.
The subsequent mistakes they have made are like something out of any other political scandal: the stonewalling, the blaming of others, the changing stories, the incriminating evidence leaking out slowly in a quote here or a source there. However, this time, it was the news organization on the flip side, and it wasn't pretty. They made a bad situation so much worse by sticking by their story for far too long, with far too little to stand on. Will heads roll at CBS News? Many are calling for Rather's head. Certainly the producer, Maples who had "worked on this story for 5 years" has to go. The whole news organization has been affected by this, and it is unfair to all the rest to not have a good accounting and clean house where need be.
The irony of the Bush campaign making its own allegations without any evidence whatsoever about a situation consisting of unsubstantiated allegations is comical. And let's suppose for a minute I work for the Kerry campaign. I get a call from this Killian guy, a known Bush hater who says he has dirt on the president. I tell him not to give it to us, but to give it to the press. What is wrong with that? What should Kerry hold me responsible for? Blowing the guy off? What was I supposed to do? These things were not released on John Kerry's stationary, so what is the problem?
It seems to me pretty obvious that CBS was had. They obviously ran with a story before it was fully vetted. Many are alleging they did this simply out of liberal bias and the fact they "wanted" the story to be true. The fact is, they do have a big bias. The break-the-news-and-get-the-big-scoop bias. The need-to-be-essential-to-the-network bias. A lot of these folks are under a tremendous amount of pressure to keep their jobs. Network news is struggling more than ever to be relevant in these days of 24-hour cable news, online newspapers, online magazines, and blogs. Personally, I never ever watch the evening news. I get the news I care about faster and easier on the web.
So obviously, they got carried away. Also, they did want the documents to be real because it confirmed what they already thought they knew. Bush did not take his physical. He did not fulfill his commitment as he had agreed to. This is undisputed by anyone at the White House. (This is also, I think, irrelevant to anything at this point.) So when CBS got these documents, what was in them seemed to make so much sense that they were ready to believe.
The subsequent mistakes they have made are like something out of any other political scandal: the stonewalling, the blaming of others, the changing stories, the incriminating evidence leaking out slowly in a quote here or a source there. However, this time, it was the news organization on the flip side, and it wasn't pretty. They made a bad situation so much worse by sticking by their story for far too long, with far too little to stand on. Will heads roll at CBS News? Many are calling for Rather's head. Certainly the producer, Maples who had "worked on this story for 5 years" has to go. The whole news organization has been affected by this, and it is unfair to all the rest to not have a good accounting and clean house where need be.
Some questions are now being raised about what if any involvement the Kerry campaign may have had in all this. Joe Lockhart did speak with CBS's fraudulent source (Killian) and this is he tells it on Fox News:
Okay, wait a minute. This guy talks to Lockhart about something else (both say) and this represents a "coordinated" attack? Killian told others that he had tried to contact the campaign but could not get through to anyone high up and they never called him back about the documents. Let's compare and contrast: the Bush campaign had "nothing to do" with the Swift Boat ads but the Bush campaign's main outside lawyer had to resign because he was involved with advising them? They are bankrolled by a prominent Bush fundraiser? Good lord. (Of course, this comes from an administration who associated 9/11 with Saddam Hussein every chance they get, so maybe they are a little fuzzy on defining relationships.)
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
The White House called the exchange evidence of coordination
between the Kerry campaign and Burkett.
"The fact that CBS News and a high-level adviser to the Kerry campaign coordinated a personal attack on President Bush is a stunning and deeply troubling evelopment," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. He urged Kerry to hold accountable anybody involved in helping CBS obtain the documents.
The irony of the Bush campaign making its own allegations without any evidence whatsoever about a situation consisting of unsubstantiated allegations is comical. And let's suppose for a minute I work for the Kerry campaign. I get a call from this Killian guy, a known Bush hater who says he has dirt on the president. I tell him not to give it to us, but to give it to the press. What is wrong with that? What should Kerry hold me responsible for? Blowing the guy off? What was I supposed to do? These things were not released on John Kerry's stationary, so what is the problem?
Kerry ends up being the loser in all this anyway. The story is not Bush's record, it is these documents. Bush comes off as sympathetic with people out to get him. Kerry gave a major (and much praised) speech about Iraq yesterday, but got hardly any coverage. This week, we have more beheadings, more bombings, more chaos. But all I hear about are these documents and stories about how awful Dan Rather is. A good week for Bush.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
11:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home