Today, all I can say is wow!
From ABCNews:
Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.
…
Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.
“I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter,” she said.
Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.
…
“I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply,” Will told ABC News.
…
A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. She said she expressed her concerns to CBS before the 60 Minutes II broadcast.
“I did not authenticate anything and I don’t want it to be misunderstood that I did,” James said. “And that’s why I have come forth to talk about it because I don’t want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents.”
A third examiner hired by CBS for its story, Marcel Matley, appeared on CBS Evening News last Friday and was described as saying the document was real.
According to The Washington Post, Matley said he examined only the signature attributed to Killian and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
So it appears that CBS was specifically warned by its document experts that the documents appeared to be inauthentic. Yet they ran the story anyway. That isn’t journalistic ethics as I understand the term.
Which leads directly to the question of why they ran the story anyway. If this had been a story about Kerry, would CBS have highlighted documents that they had been warned were inauthentic? I think not. That liberal media bias hypothesis is looking somewhat better I think.
So it appears that CBS was specifically warned by its document experts that the documents appeared to be inauthentic.
So it appears that the Bush administration was specifically warned by its document experts that the documents appeared to be inauthentic.
Not disputing your point here, just a strange coincidence…
Worth pointing out that the breaking news that gives credence to the liberal media bias thesis comes from two sources often accused of having liberal media bias. Just saying.
Another hypothesis — increasingly unlikely, but possible — is that CBS had, or believed that it had, an ace in the hole concerning the story that rendered said opinions about the documents not dispositive.
It’s also worth noting that “CBS” != “the media.”
If this had been a story about Kerry, would CBS have highlighted documents that they had been warned were inauthentic?
You mean like the SBVFL stuff? Sheesh.
There’s something else going on here. I’ve shared my Kool-Aid on several blogs regarding the increasing power of the MSM not only to report events, but influence them. You get pretty harsh ‘comments’ when you question the freedom of the press, especially implying liberal bias and I recognized the conundrum. There has been a ripple of reaction in the last couple months as the blogosphere began to question MSM reports, but this Dan Rather situation is the eye of the hurricane. Certain elements of the blogoshere has emerged as the muck rakers of MSM integrity. This is the second or third time that blogs have scooped the networks, and they’re starting to feel the heat. I’ve seen more and more blog writers appearing on TV and being referred to in columns every day. There was an article about not being able to make a living blogging. Not to take away anyone’s right to the American Dream, but isn’t that part of the equation? Of course, when advertisers realize that some spend more time getting their news off their computer screen than reading the evening rag, that too will evolve. But I like where it’s going. By the way, I just added ‘blogosphere’ and ‘blogging’ to my spell check.
If this had been a story about Kerry, would CBS have highlighted documents that they had been warned were inauthentic? I think not. That liberal media bias hypothesis is looking somewhat better I think.
I must concur with Jes. Case in point: the Swift Boat Liars. Despite being factually contradicted by official Navy records, their own prior statements about Kerry, and disavowals by some of the people they misquoted and misrepresented, the SBL were paraded around the SCLM and treated as if they were anything but a well-heeled smear job, when they should’ve been laughed off the map by anyone exercising a modicum of investigative mojo.
For the record, I’m pretty cheesed at CBS right now. I think it’s pretty clear to anyone but the most blinkered Bush-hater at this point that the memos are forgeries, that CBS did not exercise due diligence, and that Rather is torpedoing his own credibility.
That said, the volume of manufactured outrage from the right half of the blogosphere over this is becoming most tiresome. If you’re wondering why the right’s* screeching over CBS’s journalistic incompetence and/or bias is getting a ho-hum reaction from most of the left, you might want to consider the right’s embrace of Fox News these four years. I for one will be inclined to take your outrage a little more seriously when you start taking Fox to task for their relentless campaign of disinformation, GOP-friendly spin, jingoism, and plain old shoddy journalism.
* Generalization about the right/the left for the sake of grammatical simplicity. Replace, as you see fit, with “those on the right/left who”, or some variation thereof. Or simply don’t wear the shoe if it doesn’t fit.
Jesurgislac – “You mean like the SBVFL stuff? Sheesh.”
It seemed to me that the MSM ravaged the Swift Boaters. I’m guessing the backlash to Kerry was making Viet Nam a campaign issue. People just hate it. I hear more about how tired people are of hearing about Viet Nam than whether or not Kerry heroism was valid or how Bush navigated his Guard service. The Swift Boaters just reminded people what a screwed up time that was. No one wants to be taken down memory lane of that time and place.
One sin by one team at CBS is enough to convict the entire media world of liberal bias?
Anyway, I’d make a couple of points:
1) Another possible explanation for 60minutes’ behavior besides bias towards Kerry is bias towards airing an explosive story, which they’ve demonstrated before;
2) Bush partisans should be thanking CBS, because in all likelihood, the general public will now connect all the TANG accusations with the doubts about these documents and thus disregard the entire issue.
kenb – “One sin by one team at CBS is enough to convict the entire media world of liberal bias?”
No, liberal bias is enough to convict (too many of)the entire media world of liberal bias! But that was hardly the point here, now wasn’t it?
It seemed to me that the MSM ravaged the Swift Boaters.
Not really. For the first week or so, the SBL got treated as if they were credible, unimpeachable sources. For all the factual basis of their claims, they might as well have been a big group of people claiming alien abduction–but they were repeatedly given unchallenged airtime to spread their smears.
Did some in the media do their job? Sure. And eventually more of the media caught wise, although by that time they had already been framed as credible and the majority with short attention spans had already formed their opinions.
Most of the SCLM, though, continued their longstanding pattern of achieving “balance” by reporting both sides as if they were equally credible and there were no such thing as facts, instead of doing their jobs and digging deep enough to reveal the Swift Boat Liars for what they were: lavishly-funded smear-peddlers with an axe to grind.
The forged memo flap with CBS is a good example of lazy reporting mixed with ideological bias, and with an unhealthy dose of that false balance problem for flavor. It’s contemptible and those responsible should get dinged for it (and will).
It’s by no means the first such example, nor the most egregious. So the only explanation I can manage for the sudden bluster and outrage from the right over this is bald partisan maneuvering, because it’s certainly not grounded in any kind of consistently-applied principle.
No, liberal bias is enough to convict (too many of)the entire media world of liberal bias!
I’ll take circular reasoning for $500, Alex!
I hope that statement was tongue in cheek?
I’m afraid I have to join the chorus on this one, Sebastian. You’re taking one example of incompetence within one news department and projecting onto an entire industry. Perhaps you should edit to suggest it’s a bias within the CBS news department, and not leave it as broad as the “media.”
CBS reported on documents that they should have known were bogus. CBS failed basic journalism standards.
I guess that could indicate an unconcious bias — maybe the people running this story assumed that negative info about Bush must be true, and so they failed to check.
But it’s hard to see this as a concious act of bias towards liberalism. If I were in the media and wanted to help Kerry and hurt Bush, I wouldn’t do it by offering documents without thoroughly checking them.
The media is biased in hundreds of ways — towards
– getting ratings
– not pissing off advertisers
– conflict
– bad news
– simple explanations
– questioning authority
– deferring to authority
– by sources of info
– things that happen close by
– events caught on tape or camera
– towards sex
– against sex
– blood but not too much blood
That’s off the top of my head in 10 seconds. Bias towards liberal causes is probably in there, but it’s way down the list.
I think the real problem is the quality of journalism on CBS and the NYTimes. Much more than anything as simplistic as “liberal bias.”
I think the real problem is the quality of journalism on CBS and the NYTimes.
Why limit it to those sources? Does the ommission of FOX or the NYPost imply their quality is higher?
And I join Edward. I think the mainstream media has lots of biasses — the aforementioned bias in favor of explosive stories, for instance — but most of them aren’t ideological (unless we’re talking about some particular source, e.g. Fox.) I think they are doing a terrible, terrible job, but that’s not because they are slanted in one or another direction overall. Rather, it’s because they are lazy.
I may have said this before, but: the first story about which I really knew enough to assess the media’s performance was the Wesley Clark campaign. I saw Clark on C-SPAN, liked him, and spent the better part of a day (it was a weekend, luckily) doing research to figure out whether I should give him money. This was early on in the campaign when everyone was saying that he had no positions; the first time I heard this, having done my research, I thought: but that’s just false. And if clever me with my computer can find out what his positions are, why can’t people who supposedly do this for a living?
As time went on, I was just amazed both by the number of plain and obvious factual errors and by the extent to which all the news media seemed to focus on the same few facts while ignoring others. One example of the first: a reporter for Business Week reported on a speech he gave, which I watched, and reported that he was proposing to turn Iraq over to UN peacekeepers. As it happened, in the speech Clark explicitly said that he would not do this, and that it would be a really bad idea. I emailed the reporter a copy of the relevant part of the speech, and he said, basically, “oops!” and corrected it. But if he had actually watched, or even read, the speech, it’s hard for me to see how he could have made this mistake. (Note for von: He also said that Clark’s inexperience with domestic issues was obvious, and offered as an example the fact that he was concerned about the size of the deficit. I asked him why he thought that concern about the deficit was a naive sort of view, and he responded as follows: “As for the deficit, I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that current fiscal policy has helped spur economic growth, job creation and a lower deficit forecast. If left in place, I see no reason why current fiscal policy won’t continue to help. I think the prediction that tax cuts would turn out to be a scourge on the economy is simply mistaken.” So much for Business Week.)
This is just plain laziness. Something else — a kind of groupthink, I assume — must explain why they pick a particular story line and stick with it, ignoring all sorts of other relevant stuff. Clark again: in almost every interview I saw, and in almost all of the debates (in which each candidate only got two or three questions), he was asked whether he flip-flopped on the war, and why other generals (one, actually) had been critical of him. Nothing on tax policy, the deficit, or anything like that.
Likewise (leaving the vagaries of the Clark campaign behind), it can’t be liberal bias that explains why the MSM was, by their own admission, so unwilling to entertain skepticism about the administration’s case that Iraq had WMD, or their general lack of skepticism about the case for war. I think it’s much simpler: they didn’t want to seem unpatriotic. Of course, I think that skepticism is their job, and seeming patriotic is not, but there we are.
Which is all to say: I think they have a number of human failings, and in some cases have them to a degree that ought to get them fired, but that very few of these have much to do with ideology.
Does the ommission of FOX or the NYPost imply their quality is higher?
I did not mean to imply THAT.
I mentioned NYTimes as a media source I used to trust and respect (as opposed to ones I never respected).
The NYTimes has gone way downhill. E.g, more than any other major newspaper, the NYTimes swallowed the adminstration line about Iraq’s WMDs and stifled any questions. (Conservative media bias!)
Rather, it’s because they are lazy.
Don’t you mean: Rather, because he’s lazy?
I’m not going to horn in on the liberal bias issue, because I don’t think it’s important. I think the key issue is the press, for the most part, has shown themselves willing to embroider (yes, this is more polite than they deserve, but I’m in a generous mood today) toward whatever end they think is important. Could be money, could be ideological; doesn’t matter to me in the least.
Prolly my only post today; I’m on Jury Duty and the fargan courthouse filters practically everything. Even their own policy page. But at least they have the computers, so I’m not shaking with withdrawal.
I think we’re witnessing two simutaneous shifts with regard to the media and the presidency.
First, I don’t think the mainstream journalists with integrity were ready for Bush. They had a rather easy-going relationship with Bubba (despite how harsh they were on him at times, he rarely played hardball back), but Team Bush are downright ruthless with reporters who don’t play by his WH’s rules…think Helen Thomas.
Before 9/11, when it was all about access, they more or less gave the administration the benefit of doubt on most issues.
The other shift is outlined quite well in the movie “Orwell Rolls In His Grave”. Basically, the owners of the mainstream media were very interested in the recently defeated FCC changes that would have allowed them to gobble up even more of the nation’s outlets. Because Michael Powell is obviously in good with the administration, they didn’t want to piss him off as we worked to help them.
In a nutshell, the industry sucks because corporate interests are placed ahead of journalist integrity and those outlets that are more independent keep changing their approaches to stay competitive.
Also, don’t underestimate how shook up even the media were by 9/11. NYTimes editors live in New York and most likely lost friends in the attacks too.
Why Bush Left Texas
“A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush’s personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing.”
“If it is demonstrated that profound behavioral problems marred Bush’s wartime performance and even cut short his service, it could seriously challenge Bush’s essential appeal as a military steward and guardian of societal values. It could also explain the incomplete, contradictory and shifting explanations provided by the Bush camp for the President’s striking invisibility from the military during the final two years of his six-year military obligation. And it would explain the savagery and rapidity of the attack on the CBS documents.”
“It is notable that in 1972, the military was in the process of introducing widespread drug testing as part of the annual physical exams that pilots would undergo.”
and, explaining the reason why witnesses are so hard to find:
“One of the difficulties in getting to the truth about what really took place during this period is the frequently expressed fear of retribution from the Bush organization. Many sources refuse to speak on the record, or even to have their knowledge communicated publicly in any way.”
I wonder what kinds of threats a Born-Again Christian, a man of God, could possibly make. A man who does not need to obey the laws of man because he is The Child of God.
He can snort cocain anywhere he wants, he can avoid his commentments to the military whenever he pleases, he has paid for abortions but would like to still keep them away from “non-believers” the rule of law must only apply to certain riff-raff.
One can only wonder why FOX has so many viewers so quickly…
Why?
Is the explanation that stupid people just started watching more news on T.V.?
Does FOX have more attractive hosts and that draws the crowds?
Do they have better graphics?
I think we can agree that the FOX viewers weren’t being served by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or PBS… so they went to an alternate source.
Why would this happen?
Why did so many make the move so quickly?
And who is the MSM?
I’m not sure one can really compare the Times with the Post.
Catsy,
Other than the fact that many of the Swift Boats most serious charges have been proven to be accurate… you miss a crucial point about the differences between FOX and other news organizations. FOX admits to having a bias they don’t hide it.
During the RNC convention, Chris Matthews, screwed up by admiting he worked for the Carter administration. You could see in his face that he knew he shouldn’t have said it. He stammered and tried to back track. He really had the deer in the headlights look.
Bush has a dirty record and this in The Mainstream Media’s fault?
Bush has a lot to account for…but crumbles when directly confronted…and this is MSM’s fault?
Bush’s followers are OK with that as long as he keeps proclaiming “Born-Again” which is the right-wing version of “do-over, do-over, it doesn’t count”
Bush is a degenerate.
Blue — it’s not as though Matthews’ employment history is a secret — it’s available on MSNBC’S website.
Obviously no BIAS in the posts at this site…
Edward,
“First, I don’t think the mainstream journalists with integrity were ready for Bush. They had a rather easy-going relationship with Bubba (despite how harsh they were on him at times, he rarely played hardball back), but Team Bush are downright ruthless with reporters who don’t play by his WH’s rules…think Helen Thomas.”
Interesting observation. Is this behavior only due to Bush’s team or possibly has something to do with the reporters themselves?
I must say that I enjoyed the butt whipping Moore and Matthews received at the RNC convention. Moore has earned every bit of it and so have many like Matthews in the MSM.
Blue.
Would you say Fox News exhibits a political bias?
C’mon, one question, don’t talk around it. Yes or no?
uh, underbelly…you’re welcome to comment here, but you should read the posting rules first. Some of your charges, especially without cites, could get you banned. Unrelated hearsay, without back up, especially on the topic of alleged actions (here the alleged abortion payment) and such, violates the “Don’t disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake” rule.
This site attempts to find common ground among folks across the spectrum of politics, and although vigorous, supported debate is encouraged, the types of allegations that get barely noticed on a mostly leftwing or mostly rightwing site are viewed as disruptive here.
In short, if you can’t back up something offensive, it’s probably best not to offer it. Even if you can back it up, though, it should be offered within an open thread or thread related to the topic.
Again, you’re welcome here…just please note the house rules.
Haven…you’re not helping me make my case here…
I know this post is a challenge to the integrity of we liberals, who supposedly bamboozle the masses through our stranglehold on the media, but calling someone a “degenerate” is what I’d expect of Jerry Falwell, not rationale people. We don’t disprove the charge by descending to the challenge.
Obviously no BIAS in the posts at this site…
You hit your head and awake with amnesia Blue? It clearly states my bias on the “About” page. I’m supposed to represent the moderate left (yes, that’s an opening…feel free to shoot). I don’t claim to be a journalist, nor do any of the other writers here…we’re representing.
Hilzoy,
You miss my point. It was how he reacted when he said it during the RNC convention on national T.V.
He stammered… back tracked… then changed his statment from “WE” to “THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION”.
I could have respected him if he had just been straight forward about it… like Scarborough is.
Edward,
I apologize, but Bush’s abuse of the faith is sickening…He is like the televangelists many folks in many families get into and abused by, both financially and emotionally, all in the name of Christ.
If Bush was “born-again” as he claims, then he could easily face The Truth…he could be open about this part of his life, if God has had such an impact on his soul. But that is the point; he is the same old Bush. If he begins to be honest he loses, if he becomes the open book he pretends to be, his followers would drop him. So he allows lies and deceit to surround a past he has never left.
His morality is not based on the foundation of the Gospel, but his relation to power. A Christian is never to fear the truth, yet he still cannot face reporters without a script and pre-approved questions. This seems to be the opposite of a soul who has been “baptized in the blood of Christ.” He runs from any self- examination and he let’s Rove, his theologian, hide his past.
My experience with the media has been abysmal as well. The bias in favor of telling a simple but sensational story always trumps the interest in telling the truth, and I can’t think of a single time I’ve seen a press report about something I’ve been involved with that didn’t have huge errors of fact and logic.
I’m not in the least surprised that some CBS producer took what they got from the experts and ran with it — and don’t understand why anyone really expects better of these people.
The funny thing, though, is that now the secretary is saying that although the docs are no good, the sentiments expressed are on the money. Makes CBS’s mistake seem a harmless error to anyone who cares at all, either way, about the substance. Seems to me that only people who care about media accuracy in the abstract — and we can see who they are by seeing whether they complain about shoddy stories that are in their favor — really have standing to continue complaining about this.
Obviously the consequences are quite different, but I see a whole lot of folks using a “harmless error” justification regarding the missing Iraqi WMD. My beef with that is the same as my beef with CBS: cry wolf about how you have the goods, come up short, and your credibility takes a hit. The difference, though, is that no matter how much righties want to apply CBS’s mistakes to folks like me, it’s not an error that reflects on me at all. CBS does not represent me, in any way, ever, and its credibility isn’t an asset of mine to husband.
I cannot adequately express my overwhelming relief that bias has been completely outed in the mainstream media and that the blogosphere is now the refuge for absolute truth, not to mention bedrock facticity.
I suppose I should remind you that I am objectively pro-objective and absolutely biased in favor of non-bias, even though I differ utterly with the absolutely objective Truths of certain ornithological/canine Truth-knowers, but that can only be because the Truth is all-encompassing.
Knowing that I have discovered the absolute Truth on all issues, and knowing that this Truth is obvious to all, I can now spend my time more wisely, rather than on stuff like commenting on Blogs or, say, voting.
I especially appreciate the knowledge that Absolute Truth is conveyed to me by absolute Truth-knowers who declaim the absolute Truth under e-mail non de plumes, fake names, the names of fictional characters, the names of dead historical figures, acronyms, nicknames, aliases, etc.
When I capitalize the word “Truth”, that’s just my way of signaling to you that we both know the Truth.
I can’t disagree with any of that Haven. I pretty much see it the same way.
I would go further (but promise to keep it short so as not to hijack the thread) to say the President’s personal relationship with God may influence his decision-making process and in a nation that ensures we have religious freedom, it’s fine for him to tell us generally what he believes, but having been raised in a Born-again culture where one’s personal relationship with God was viewed as PERSONAL, I find many of his public declarations distasteful and inappropriate for the POTUS.
Now if I could only come back around and tie that in with MSM bias, well, let’s just say the media a few decades ago would have blasted anyone wearing their religion on their sleeve like Bush does, so the so-called bias escapes me.
Does Fox News display a notable bias in its reporting, Blue?
Was CBS biased so much as lazy and afraid they were going to get scooped.
Whoever got these documents out obviously was sending them around otherwise USAToday wouldn’t have had copies.
Perhaps CBS News, like Novak before them, was more in a struggle to remain relevent.
John,
Bush claims to be a “Born-Again.” The last I heard, one would have to know absolute truth in order to make such a claim.
There are no reinterpretations of truth if you are claiming to believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, as Bush does indeed seem to believe. Now this is all within the “born-again” context. If this is indeed true, as it seems to be concerning Bush, then why doesn’t he just come forward and say what happened in Texas on 1973, 74.
Christianity among most of this persuasion is nothing but absolutes. Bush knows the truth of his past. Why doesn’t he take responsibility for them?
Perhaps CBS News, like Novak before them, was trying to remain relevent.
In their case though, they moved forward hastily with the belief they were about to be scooped by another news agency. Obviously whoever was distributing the documents was getting them around to USAToday and beyond.
Novak’s excuse is different. He just doesn’t give a crap.
Sorry for the (essentially) double post.
The server (or my computer’s relationship to it) is acting strangely today.
If this had been a story about Kerry, would CBS have highlighted documents that they had been warned were inauthentic? I think not.
As many have noted, they already have.
He stammered… back tracked… then changed his statment from “WE” to “THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION”.
Blue, does Chris Matthews currently work for the Carter Administration?
It’s a pretty simple question, and it has a pretty simple answer: no, Chris Matthews does not currently work for the Carter administration. Chris Matthews works for MSNBC, and saying “we” in that kind of context might have led some viewers to infer that he meant MSNBC (remember, his current employer) instead of the Carter administration (you’ll recall he no longer works for them). When he realized the potential problem, he corrected himself.
And to answer your initial question, at least in my area (Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Region), the reason Fox News got so many viewers so quickly was because it began broadcasting at 10 PM when all of the other stations were still broadcasting news at 11. (Even now that stations have changed over, a lot of people don’t switch, either because they don’t know that the other stations have caught up or because Fox is familiar.)
“Not really. For the first week or so, the SBL got treated as if they were credible, unimpeachable sources.”
Swift Boat Veterans got treated non-skeptically by the mainstream media? Not by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or the NYT. And those are typically the ones we talk about when mentioning media bias. The Swift Boat Veterans were first ignored and then derided. The precise opposite of how this story was played.
“I’m afraid I have to join the chorus on this one, Sebastian. You’re taking one example of incompetence within one news department and projecting onto an entire industry.”
Did you read the quotes? Being told by your document experts that the documents are likely fraudulant and then relying on a signature expert to authenticate the document even though he ONLY expresses a comment on the signature and even though he is working off a copy rather than an original is not incompetence. If they had conflicting expert reports, that would be one thing. So far as we can tell they did not.
Furthermore, every case is just one case. This is just the most recent and most dramatic case. But please don’t pretend that it is the only case.
BTW, I should be clear. I’m not really anti-bias. I’m against the facade of objectivity that the mainstream media attempts to project. The only reason I keep harping on the media bias issue is because so many people like to assert that the news is reported with such professionalism as to generally avoid a liberal bias from the overwhelmingly liberal reporters. That just isn’t true.
Do we know to what extent Rather is responsible and to what extent his producer is? (Mapes or whoever?) I mean, anchors have known to read what was handed to them. Rather’s role seems to have been more than that, but do we actually know?
What I find inexcusable is not that they ran the story and released the documents, but that they said nothing, in either the original report or their defense, about these two experts’ existence or doubts.
Did you read the quotes?
Sebastian, I think there are some key points you’re missing here.
None of the three analysts mentioned in the article – Emily Will, Linda James, or Marcel Matley – are CBS analysts. They were brought on by CBS specifically to look over the documents in question. Further, the CBS release (on page 3 of the ABC article – and other than mentioning it here, I won’t note the advantage that ABC gains by naysaying CBS) indicates not only that both Emily Will nor Linda James only examined one of the documents, but that CBS did have conflicting expert reports.
Furthermore, at least one of the experts, Linda James, is coming out specifically to cover her ass:
“And that’s why I have come forth to talk about it because I don’t want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents.”
From what I can tell from the ABC article, it looks like Will and James are disclaiming their responsibility here pre-emptively, so that when someone considers hiring them in the future and this comes up, they can say “No, look, I specifically disclaimed responsibility for that, and CBS backed me up.”
(Of course, saying “Well, yes, CBS hired us to analyze these documents, but they obviously didn’t think we’d done a good enough job since they went with the opinion of another expert” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.)
Finally, Sebastian, I’d like to know where you get that Matley is a signature expert. That isn’t said anywhere in the article – that I’ve found; only that the signature was what he examined. Can you back that up?
Did you read the quotes?
Sebastian, I think there are some key points you’re missing here.
None of the three analysts mentioned in the article – Emily Will, Linda James, or Marcel Matley – are CBS analysts. They were brought on by CBS specifically to look over the documents in question. Further, the CBS release (on page 3 of the ABC article – and other than mentioning it here, I won’t note the advantage that ABC gains by naysaying CBS) indicates not only that both Emily Will nor Linda James only examined one of the documents, but that CBS did have conflicting expert reports.
Furthermore, at least one of the experts, Linda James, is coming out specifically to cover her ass:
“And that’s why I have come forth to talk about it because I don’t want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents.”
From what I can tell from the ABC article, it looks like Will and James are disclaiming their responsibility here pre-emptively, so that when someone considers hiring them in the future and this comes up, they can say “No, look, I specifically disclaimed responsibility for that, and CBS backed me up.”
(Of course, saying “Well, yes, CBS hired us to analyze these documents, but they obviously didn’t think we’d done a good enough job since they went with the opinion of another expert” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.)
Finally, Sebastian, I’d like to know where you get that Matley is a signature expert. That isn’t said anywhere in the article – that I’ve found; only that the signature was what he examined. Can you back that up?
Sebastian,
Is objectivity a facade or an ideal?
Sincerest apologies on the double post. TypeKey keeps insisting that I haven’t posted yet. :/
Wait. The memos are fake?
McDuff,
My apologies for not posting quick enough for you, since you felt the need to ask the same question twice.
Yes, Fox news admits to being conservative and having conservative views. Everyone knows that and they are honest about it.
Their goal is to present a FAIR and BALANCED perspective.
If the other media outlets would half as honest about their political leanings then I could respect them more and accept the bias.
Haven,
Please give it up. There is not a single Christian organization that practices 100% literal interpretation of the Bible. It would be almost impossible for any to do.
Carsick,
I am having problems also.
EDG,
The context which you place his comment in is not accurate.. He was speaking in past tense at the time and he had been talking about the steps taken in the 1976 DNC convention.
“Is objectivity a facade or an ideal?”
Good question.
To me Scarborough admits to having conservative roots on his show.
Matthews seems to act as if he is unbiased and impartial even though his roots are well known.
Alan Combes is another example of someone I can respect. We all know where he falls in the political spectrum. I don’t have to agree with him.
Rather, Jennings, Matthews and such try to come of as objective even though they have obvious political beliefs. That I can’t respect.
“Sebastian,
Is objectivity a facade or an ideal?”
Why would it have to be an either/or question? It seems to me that objectivity is a laudable goal, and the fact that modern journalists pretend to generally acheive it is not praiseworthy.
EDG, by ‘signature expert’ I mean that he was hired to investigate the signature. For all I know he could be an expert on many things. But his role in this fiasco is that of an analyzer of signatures.
CBS claimed to have conflicting reports. It has only offered the names of those who disagreed with the document’s authenticity, or one who only analyzed the signature from a copy (which by the way is another ridiculous thing altogether). There is no journalist-expert analyst confidentiality duty.
I believe that CBS will not admit that the documents are forged, despite clear indications that they were forged, because they got them from some prominent supporter of the Kerry campaign–either a high-profile 527 or someone in the campaign itself. I won’t offer that as evidence of further liberal bias, because it is my personal speculation rather than an established fact.
Blue
I am going to quote liberally here but I’ll leave a link at the bottom.
“…Fox reporters hide behind the conceit that they are opinion journalists, and media critics therefore hold them to a lower standard–as if being in the business of opinion journalism frees Fox from the obligation to deal in facts.
And that’s why Fox’s particular brand of bias is so much more dangerous than Rather’s: The (unfortunate) conventions of opinion journalism don’t demand that they stick scrupulously to truth; nor are they expected to apologize when they report blatant falsehoods. And so the record as reported by Fox News goes uncorrected in the public’s mind, and talking points enter our discourse with a pretense of truth. Let’s concede, for argument’s sake, that most Fox viewers know they are watching opinion journalism. Does this really lessen their expectation that the opinions presented will be based on evidence that is basically true? Of course not. Viewers watching “60 Minutes,” of course, also expect that the reporting they see is true. The difference is that viewers of “60 Minutes” may soon hear a correction. And even if CBS doesn’t offer a correction, media critics will let Americans know if they were entitled to one. ”
link
Sebastian
Why would you claim something like this?
“the fact that modern journalists pretend to generally acheive it is not praiseworthy”
Your argument assumes a great deal but I don’t think we can agree on your assumptions.
Can you show me where any journalists in the MSM have said they have “achieved” objectivity.
Poor argument. Means nothing.
The facade would be claiming “fair and balanced” while also admitting that they have a strong conservative perspective. Is that what you mean by facade and ideal not having to be either/or?
Ha ha ha
I forgot to mention the other reason that CBS might not burn the source–he is already so discredited that relying on him would have been obviously awful from the beginning.
Blue,
I realize the inherent problem, claiming “absolute truth” however; right-wing Christians believe there is no problem. That is there is only One Way.
You may understand the problem of believing in “absolutes” but does Bush and the Fundamentalist? And there are many Churches who do indeed believe in the 100% inerrancy of the Bible, and they vote Republican, … more specifically Bush.
Biblical Law
(OT, and has anyone noticed that the name changes to another name if using “preview.” it went to a tag I used at another site)
Blue,
I realize the inherent problem, claiming “absolute truth” however; right-wing Christians believe there is no problem. That is there is only One Way.
You may understand the problem of believing in “absolutes” but does Bush and the Fundamentalist? And there are many Churches who do indeed believe in the 100% inerrancy of the Bible, and they vote Republican, … more specifically Bush.
Biblical Law
Right-Wing Christians do believe there are absolute objective truths. And in order to know them one must know Christ (as it were).
So it is not just “MSM” and “the scientific method” that believe objectivity can be attained.
As a matter of fact, many right-wing Christians do believe only Christians can attain true objectivity because of their foundation in Christ (the beginning of all truth, the presupposition to any attempt at truth).
I’d like to see where Bush stands on this issue?
Oh this is rich.
” A leading House Republican on Wednesday asked for a congressional investigation into disputed documents used by CBS News ”
While…
” In another show of the power of money in Washington, the House Ethics Committee resorted to an option that has never been used before that could, in effect, kill the ethics investigation into Tom DeLay?s illegal fundraising and his role in Texas redistricting. After nearly three months of reviewing the charges against DeLay, the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Ethics committee postponed today?s hearing and have decided to put before the committee the question of whether to proceed with the investigation. This unprecedented move could result in a deadlock among the ten member committee resulting in no further action in this Congress.”
” Of the five Republican members of the committee all but Chairman Hefley have accepted contributions from DeLay?s PACs.”
Crime Dog – “Would you say Fox News exhibits a political bias?”
Which part of Fox News? Bill O’Reilly is an egotistical ‘personality’ along the lines of Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart. Sean Hannity is a strong conservative that fits in with Colmes in a crossfire type setup. Fox News in general is pretty balanced and I think attempts to report a moderate common ground. If Fox News to you is O’Reilly, then in that narrow context, then I guess you’re right. If you’re just trying to deflect the argument, so what’s new.
The context which you place his comment in is not accurate.. He was speaking in past tense at the time and he had been talking about the steps taken in the 1976 DNC convention.
Blue, so your argument is that it’s less likely that Matthews could have been self-editing for clarity – doing his best either to clarify which of his employers (the current employer, MSNBC, or the prior employer, the Carter administration) he meant or to clarify that he hadn’t been part of the team taking the steps (which just occurred to me as a possibility, and which isn’t necessarily the case) – than that he wanted to distance himself from an employer which is openly listed on his current curriculum vitae?
Where’s that bias again?
It’s also possible, that Dan Rather, at age 74, is not as sharp as he was 20 years ago.
blogbud
Even if I agreed with you that Colmes is an equal counterweight to Hannity in the style of Crossfire(which I don’t and neither do you), then how could Colmes counter something like this:
On the September 10 edition of his ABC Radio Networks show, FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity suggested that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) may have been behind the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos. Hannity based his suggestion on his claim that the controversial memos relating to President George W. Bush’s military service, which were first aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, were obtained by “the same person that had the Abu Ghraib pictures.”
If you blatantly just make crap up then how is any rational person to respond? Live?
Submitted without comment.
Blue – “Yes, Fox news admits to being conservative and having conservative views. Everyone knows that and they are honest about it.”
blogbudsman – “Fox News in general is pretty balanced and I think attempts to report a moderate common ground.”
Can’t you conservatives just get along? ;pppppp
The statements are both accurate.
Saying that one is conservative and also saying one is pretty balanced in their reporting is not exclusive of the other.
Fox news commentators acknowledge their conservative leanings.
You have selectively eliminated the part where I commented on that they try to be fair and balanced.
CBS couldn’t have done a better job at trying to misrepresent our comments…
“On the September 10 edition of his ABC Radio Networks show, FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity suggested that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) may have been behind the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos. Hannity based his suggestion on his claim that the controversial memos relating to President George W. Bush’s military service, which were first aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, were obtained by “the same person that had the Abu Ghraib pictures.”
See, now that shouldn’t be on the air. Plain and simple.* It is a lie. It is made up out of thin air, and contradicts all known evidence. There are certain basic standards that should be followed, or you should not be paid for your opinions or have them broadcast over the airwaves.
I don’t care if you admit that you’re conservative or claim to be objective–my main problem with Fox has never been that it purported to be “fair and balanced”. I don’t care if it’s a news program or an opinion program; he’s making a factual claim. The only disclaimer you could put on to give an accurate impression of what Hannity sells is “extreme ideologue making s*** up”.
I’ve said, over and over–the problem with Fox is not that it’s conservative, or that they claim not to be. The problem is that it’s crap journalism that leaves you no better informed, and probably WORSE informed, than when you turned it on.
I think an unapologetically conservative news daily or network that followed high standards of journalism and got its facts right would be a good thing. I think an unapologetically liberal news daily or network that followed high standards of journalism and got its facts right would be an even better thing.
*Obviously, I am not saying that the government should ban such speech. That would be a terrible idea. Hannity is open to being sued for libel if he commits libel, but prior restraint is right out. I am saying that no reputable media organization should broadcast it, let alone pay Hannity for it.
Saying that one is conservative and also saying one is pretty balanced in their reporting is not exclusive of the other.
Let’s try this the other way and see if you agree:
If that were possible, let alone true, this entire thread would be unnecessary. I did notice that the “technically true” challenge in your statement hinges on what the meaning of “tries” is.
EDG,
Did you even see the comment that I am talking about?
Can you tell me what the actual conversation was about?
Just wondering
Lou Dobbs doesn’t make crap up. He’s definitely conservative and unafraid to show it. He just doesn’t read the partisan talking points over the air.
Hey remember the great photo of Kerry and Fonda speaking at a rally? Fox does. It was a fake though.
Fox just moved on. No apology. Brit Hume and John Gibson, Fox’s supposed “news journalists” pushed the photo. So did Hannity, O’Reilly et al at Fox.
right-wing Christians believe there is no problem. That is there is only One Way.
Pure, utter, unfrosted horseshit, Haven.
Although, it must be said, there are sects that do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. It’s just that some things really defy any sort of interpretation at all, and so the idea that literal interpretation means that everything is (at least stated to be) completely understood and to be complied with is utter fallacy.
Edward,
“X News is liberal, has liberal views, and is honest about those liberal views.
However, X News is balanced and tries to report the middle ground.”
…or tries to report both sides accurately.
Don’t you feel like that statement describes yourself?
If that is what the MSM did I could respect it more.
The thread is necessary exactly because the MSM doesn’t follow your logic.
Sometimes, it is true. Sometimes NPR does a great job. Sometimes the MSM does a great job.
Just not most of the time.
The goal is either to try to reach the ideal of objectivity or the goal is to promote a perspective.
The first goal precludes the the second goal so the two goals are mutually exclusive.
Unless you want to include the “blind squirrel” theory.
Carsick,
Why is that the only goal?
In my world the news would accurately present both sides of an issue and let me decide for myself.
But, that seems to be too much to ask of the MSM.
“The goal is either to try to reach the ideal of objectivity or the goal is to promote a perspective.
The first goal precludes the the second goal so the two goals are mutually exclusive.”
If that is your definition, it is clear to me that network news attempts to promote a perspective. Under that definition their claims to be objective are false. But I don’t like your definitions.
Don’t you feel like that statement describes yourself?
Not at all. I’m not a journalist. I’m an opinion spouter…an amatuer pundit, if you will.
My journalist friends make this one very easy for me. They have very distinct feelings about politics and if we’re out drinking I’ll get an ear full, but I don’t recognize any of that when I read their stories. Why? Because they’re professionals.
I may think that I am inherently racist but it is a trait I neither promote or embrace. My “goal” is to act without racism affecting my decision making.
The unusual thing about “ideals” is that they are hardly ever reached absolutely but they are worth reaching for.
The goal of promoting a view point isn’t valueless and can be admirable as long as lying is not one of the tactics of promotion.
sidereal – “Submitted without comment.”
Yeah, and out of context. ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!
“It should be clear from this week’s torrent of commentary that Rather is held to very high standards by his critics, which have included not only the blogosphere but The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, and NBC–in other words, everyone else in the mainstream media. No one at the Post, the Times, ABC, or NBC is doing the same for Fox’s journalists. That, in the end, is the biggest distinction between CBS and Fox. It’s also why, even if you believe the worst about Dan Rather, he’s ultimately less of a threat to journalistic integrity than Sean Hannity.”
Hey carsick, this is as close as we’ve been together ever.
“If you blatantly just make crap up then how is any rational person to respond? Live?”
Colmes could say that that was the biggest ration of BS he’d ever heard come out of Hannity’s mouth. Hannity is NOT Fox News. That was my point. Fox New’s newscasts are pretty decent. A couple of their shows, O’Reilly included, are crap. I like to watch Matthews if he remembers to take his medication. I like how his mouth moves like Clutch Cargo. I can’t stand Ohlberman (I’m not even gonna look up the spelling) cause he’s just a shock TV dick. I haven’t watched a CBS, ABC, NBC national newscast in months. Their agenda is blatantly obvious. THAT’S why I’m encouraged about blogs on both sides of the issue keeping them honest.
What’s that quote from? It’s exactly right.
The calls for Congressional Investigation are utterly inappropriate and especially absurd considering all the things that Congress does NOT deem it necessary to investigate.
Honestly though, I don’t know why the press bothers changing its coverage to avoid charges of liberal bias.
Here is PowerLine’s latest:
If the L.A. Times reports a story that reflects badly on their side, it is an example of liberal bias. If they report a story that reflects badly on the other side, it is proof that even the hard left, G.O.P. hating L.A. Times is forced to acknowledge that the other side is wrong.
If there is no terrorist attack, it proves that President Bush’s strategy in the war on terror is winning, and we must re-elect him. If there is a terrorist attack, it proves that we are still at war, and we must unite behind our commander in Chief and re-elect him.
If there is a strong economy and a surplus, the government is keeping too much of your money and we need a tax cut. If there is a weak economy and a deficit, we need to stimulate the economy with a tax cut.
If the war in Iraq goes well, it is proof that those anti American antiwar protesters were wrong and should be ignored. If the war in Iraq goes badly, it is proof that those anti American antiwar protesters are undermining our troops.
Heads we win. Tails you lose.
As I said, I don’t understand why the press bothers. They should try to be objective and get their facts right for their own sake, but if they think there is anything they can do short of becoming another Fox or NY Post to get people to stop accusing them of “liberal bias”, they don’t know who they’re dealing with.
Hannity is NOT Fox News. That was my point. Fox New’s newscasts are pretty decent.
Hannity’s not FoxNews? That’s news to FoxNews.
About a year ago, Britt Hume (Fox’s Dan Rather) told us things were going swimmingly in Iraq. By way of evidence he told us Iraq was the same size as California and that we were losing “only” an average of 1.7 servicemen daily in Iraq, while California averaged 6.6 murders each day.
Tell me, Blogbudsman, is this an example of “pretty decent” journalism, gross stupidity, or bias?
Given that Hannity is opinion and Rather is (at least supposed to be) news, there’s not much sense in comparing them. Expecting quality journalism out of talk shows is a little…unrealistic. No, you’ve got to compare the straight-up news shows.
Not ever having watched any Fox news OR opinions, I have no view on the matter.
“No one at the Post, the Times, ABC, or NBC is doing the same for Fox’s journalists.”
So get an article by a fox news journalist and find the fraud. I think you could do it easily with the opinion spouters, but not so with the journalists. I suspect it is especially not true with a story given a half hour or more at a time.
JadeGold – “Tell me, Blogbudsman, is this an example of “pretty decent” journalism, gross stupidity, or bias?”
Whoa JG, we were talking balance! I would agree with you that TV journalism involves a lot of gross stupidity. You ever watch a ‘live’ report? And that’s how most of the world forms it’s opinion of America. Totally different subject.
One brief example is the casual way even a supposed Fox “News journalist” will throw out a winger like this:
“BRIT HUME: The other thing that we ought to note about this is—the explanation that this was, quote, “sloppiness” really makes no sense. Sloppiness is if you accidentally brush something into your briefcase or take it out with other files that you didn’t mean. You don’t accidentally or sloppily stuff stuff into your pants and socks.”
An anonymous accusation about Sandy Berger became a fact to Brit Hume and then…and then…nothing from Fox when the accusation turned out not to be true.
Whoa JG, we were talking balance!
As am I. That’s but one example from FoxNews. I’d argue FoxNews purposely blurs the line between news and “entertainment” (or whatever you’d deem Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. to be.) They do this by seamlessly transitioning from “just the facts” reporting into editorializing.
So get an article by a fox news journalist and find the fraud.
Please name a Fox journalist. Britt Hume?
Classic.
“Please name a Fox journalist”
Okay, start with these:
Oliver North
Michelle Malkin
Newt Gingrich
Geraldo Rivera
John Podhoretz
Here’s more Brit Hume.
HUME: Coalition forces meanwhile, have found further weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But at least one news organization seems unable to accept it, even in a story that reports that such weapons have been found. Agence French Press [Agence France-Presse], after saying, quote, “Terrorist groups were seeking to acquire the warheads containing mustard or sarin gas, which Polish troops recently discovered in Iraq,” reports several paragraphs later, quote, that “No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq, seriously undermining,” says the quote, “what was the central argument for going to war.”
Oops. And of course. No Apology. No acknowledgement. No uproar.
I just read Edward’s post on September 15, 2004 11:38 AM, and I wish I would have shut up.
I did not mean to hi-jack the thread.
(I haven’t been passionate for politics, like this, since high school…and I just start thinking aloud)
FOX television is not a conservative news source.
It is the Republican Party’s propaganda wing.
Slartibartfast,
What denomination do you belong to?
INERRANCY AS DEFINED BY:
Conservative Protestants, Catholics & liberal Christians
Religious Institutions and Beliefs
Can I suggest you leave the religion stuff out of this thread, Haven? It’s not going to help matters one whit and it has the potential to turn real ugly real fast.
I’m a Lutheran, although I just can’t seem to bring myself to buy into Genesis as a literal version of Creation. My personal beliefs, though, are immaterial to my objection to your characterization of Christianity.
I’m going to agree with Anarch; you’re getting into dangerous territory, and attempting to mind-read that which you’re not part of is going to piss some people off. I’m not all that sensitive on the issue, but you need to realize that analysis of religious convention by outside organizations is somewhat lacking in nuance.
IOW, you might just as well be reading the Q’uran and cherrypicking quotes to support your anti-Islam point of view. Hell, even a dumb right-winger like me can do that.
So, get it: inerrancy is simply a faith in the Bible as being the true word of God. It doesn’t mean that all of those words can be understood. No Lutheran is going to claim that the Bible is both completely true AND fully fathomable.
And that’s all I’m gonna say about that.
I find it funny that Bush and many of his followers use his faith as a centerpiece in his foundation as a moral man with moral certainty–his moral character. Yet, no one wants to discuss it. We can go over people’s past and present, with a fine toothcomb looking for meaning into their character and their value system, but discussing the structure of that faith with the same people who claim it is essential to character is somehow…out of bounds…very strange.
Slartibartfast,
I am not trying to lure you into a debate, but allow me to put your Lutheranism within a context…and then I will be a good Presbyterian and drop it,…is it The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod?
I don’t think it is really Fox’s fault that chemical warheads don’t count as WMD to the left anymore.
I don’t think it is really Fox’s fault that chemical warheads don’t count as WMD to the left anymore.
Apparently, David Kay, Hans Blix and the Iraq Survey Group (DIA, CIA, and DoD SF) agree with the left.
Missouri Synod?
No. I belong to Wisconsin Synod.
Most Christian churches spend much more time, effort and money to the end of helping people than they do toward legislative activities and demonstrations. It’s just that the charity doesn’t make for good airtime.
I don’t think it is really Fox’s fault that chemical warheads don’t count as WMD to the left anymore.
I love this argument. One rusty chemical warhead is offered up as proof that we just had to invade Iraq, that our very security demanded we invade, killing thousands, to ensure that one rusty chemical warhead didn’t fall into the wrong hands.
I don’t think it’s the left’s fault that the Administration has zero credibility on this issue any more.
Sebastian,
“I don’t think it is really Fox’s fault that chemical warheads don’t count as WMD to the left anymore.”
Hours later the press was reporting:
“Meanwhile, a dozen warheads that Polish forces said on Thursday contained mustard gas or sarin contained neither, according to US forces, who tested the 122mm munitions.”
So again, Hume presents his OPINION before the integrity of the information has cleared. And, once again, there is no need to apologize because he no longer has the credibility of a “news journalist”. “Opinion journalists” are allowed to spout off without correction or apology quite often.
Dan Rather? not so much.
The above-the-fold story, right below the hurrican coverage, in today’s liberal Washington Post, is all about how much GWB loves Jesus, and how humble and god-fearing he is.
That liberal media!
I noticed that as well, Phil. But it’s not really surprising; the WaPo, under Donald Graham, is actually a right-wing newspaper. Of course, we have the Moonie Times in this city, so the WaPo appears left by comparison.
Graham is a personal friend of Dubya’s–that’s why we saw articles questioning the Iraq invasion consigned to page A18 and back.
About the only area where Graham diverges from Bush is on gun control. Graham–in his younger days–served as a cop in DC and DC cops are pretty vocal about the need for gun control.
The “liberal media” canard is a self-indulgent shibboleth that gets dragged out far too often by the right.
Some media in the USA is biased left from your point of view, or “centre right” from over here in Old Europe. Some media in the USA is biased right from your centre, or “see, now this is what gets you in trouble” from Europe’s centre.
None of this — absolutely none of this bias — is the result of some vast liberal conspiracy against conservatism or American Values or whatever it is that’s supposedly under threat this week. It’s the result of humans being involved in the creation and presentation of news broadcasts.
There is a “liberal media,” but it is a subset of the larger group “the media,” which also includes a not-inconsiderable group called “the conservative media.” “They,” whoever they are, are not out to get you. Stop arguing about how mean the other side are, for God’s sake. It’s a rank ad-hominem.