� Flaherty phones it in | Home | The Difference between Liberals and Tories �
September 20, 2004
CBS admits to a "mistake"
After trumpeting a series of memos as new evidence George W. Bush got preferential treatment to avoid going to war in Vietnam, then saying the memos were fakes but accurate, CBS News is now admitting it made a mistake in reporting on the documents.
In his own statement, CBS News Anchor Dan Rather said, "If I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."
All of this comes a little too late for my liking. Don't get me wrong - George W. Bush is not boy scout - but the story in question attacked the man's integrity. Before implying Mr. Bush is both a liar and a coward, CBS had an obligation to ensure the facts that were leaked to them were actually facts - and not someone serving an agenda. This wasn't a question of the media attacking a candidate's policy, this was an attack on his character. The highest journalistic standards should have applied.
In their story, CBS said they "were told" the documents came from Mr. Bush's Commanding Officer's files. As it turns out, they came from a Democratic Party fundraiser (and former National Guardsman who has mad it his mission to challenge Georger Bush's National Guard Service) who can't actually tell CBS where he got the memos (he says they came from various sources that CBS cannot confirm).
Shockingly, CBS actually sought this guy out as a source.
CBS should face more questions in the days to come. The network did, in the face of questions around the documents, have them analyzed by a number of experts, but what did they do before going to air to ensure they were not merely the vehicle for one person to slander another? Why did they not try to identify the Democratic Party operative's sources to confirm his story? Why did they seek to defend the report last week by broadcasting an interview with a National Guard secretary who said the documents were fakes but that the facts in them were accurate?
Dan Rather was at pains in his written statement to say there was no political motivation for the story. If that is true, then he is admitting CBS has become a sloppy news organization more interested in the sensational than the accurate. Frankly, it is easier for me to believe the researchers, producers and hosts of 60 Minutes saw evidence to support what they believed to be true and ran with it despite its dubious provenance.
In news, your credibility is your only currency. CBS has rested on it's inherited reputation for so long that it was only a matter of time before lazy sensationalism got the better of them.
Posted by maxthecat on September 20, 2004 at 06:04 PM
| Printer-friendly version
Filed in: The Media
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.maxsmewsings.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/123



