Finally that important word is raised this morning in Howard Kurtz’s latest – CBS, Sitting Between Fiasco And Fallout:
Bob Zelnick, a former ABC correspondent who now chairs Boston University’s journalism department, faulted CBS’s apology, saying: “There’s one word I haven’t heard so far: retraction. They’ve yielded inch by inch on the authenticity of the documents and the reliability of the source, but without the documents there was no story.” Until CBS retracts the story and apologizes directly to Bush, “it mitigates the potential beneficial effect of an independent board.” (hat tip: Catherine Johnson)
MEANWHILE… and more importantly… Safire says “First Find the Forger“… At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources.
Zelnick is a bright guy. Too bright for the main stream media. UVA law graduate who got bounced by ABC/Disney over his conservative views. He wrote a stimulating book a few years back about the corrusive and illegal effects of affirmative action; totally ignored by the MSM which never defended him in his firing. It is good to see that he is in Boston teaching young journalists.
ìHe wrote a stimulating book a few years back about the corrusive and illegal effects of affirmative actionî
I criticized Bob Zelnickís book on affirmative action. He focussed on the horror stories. My own view is that affirmative action can be beneficial when the minority applicant is picked—after everything else is equal. Oh well, I should deal with this matter at a more appropriate time. At this particular time, Zelnick and I are on the same page.
CBS has long been indifferent about the financial earnings of its news division. The red ink has been apparently flowing for a long time. Could it be that the liberals at CBS could care less about wasting their investorsí money? Ideology might indeed trump finances. Of course, these top CBS people still get paid the big bucks. Only the investors pay the price.
Itís time for a government investigation. The culprits at CBS can continue bovine excrementing us. We have no power to put them into jail. However, that is not the case when one lies during a formal investigation. Just ask Martha Stewart.
I din’t think much of Rather’s apology when he made it, even though he did his best to sound all sincere and remorseful, because he didn’t address President Bush by name. He pretended to apologise to the American people, or the viewers, but not to the one most hurt by his story. The cynic in me decided he was more worried about ratings than honesty and integrity. So I’m with Mr. Zelnick: too little, too late, Dan.
Rather would rather cut his tongue out on TV than apologize to W or any Bush.
David:
Actually a good case could be made for putting CBS executives in jail. First, there is the “what did they know and when did they know it” aspect of the case. If CBS personnel knowingly used or actually fabricated official government correspondence with the intent to commit a fraud they have committed an felony.
Second, while running CBS News as loss leader/public service is not illegal, committing a fraud that results in severe financial losses to CBS/VIACOM is at least ground for a stockholder’s civil suit but in principle is no different from what ENRON/WORLDCOM/GLOBAL CROSSING executives did. So yes, there may be grounds for crimminal prosecution however, remote such an action may be.
jedrury
Interesting.
Thank you so much for posting this; I would have had no idea.
Here’s the link for the book:
Backfire: A Reporter’s Look at Affirmative Action
by Bob Zelnick
Hey!
There’s a negative review posted, written by “David Thomson.”
I’m thinking this is “our” David Thomson . . .
Oh.
Uh.
I should possibly make a habit of reading the thread FIRST.
Yes, indeed, the negative review of Zelnick’s book was written by “our own” David Thomson.
Hi, David!
I haven’t read either of these books, but they are supposed to be good:
Diversity: The Invention of a Concept by Peter Wood
Coloring the News by Bill McGowan
ì…committing a fraud that results in severe financial losses to CBS/VIACOM is at least ground for a stockholder’s civil suit but in principle is no different from what ENRON/WORLDCOM/GLOBAL CROSSING executives did.î
This may be why Dan Rather hasnít been forced to resign. Viacom probably prefers to have him on the inside of the organization instead on the outside. My previous theory that he would be gone by today was premised upon the naive view that the top executives at CBS/Viacom were primarily concerned about the bottom line.
I have just heard about some sort of commission to investigate the scandal. Richard Thornburg will apparently be involved. This seems to me to be a total waste of time. We already essentially know what happened, and a private group cannot throw anyone into jail! No, only a formal governmental agency will scare the CBS culprits into telling the truth. This dumb commission will simply prevent us from finding out more—until after the election. My gut impression is that this bovine excrement is also meant to protect the Kerry campaign.
Zelnick’s quote is the reason I come to blogs: to “find the words.”
I think all of us have been grumpy about Dan Rather’s “apology,” while not being able to put our finger on exactly what was wrong with it (unless Terrye has already used the word “retraction” in another thread, which is a distinct possibility).
Time and again, blogs give me the “bottom line” I’m trying to grasp.
The bottom line here is retraction.
CBS must retract the story.
They must explicitly disavow Rather’s “fake but accurate” stance, because, as Zelnick says, without the memos there is no story, period.
Does the Ben Barnes story still stand?
Yes.
He may be lying, but he says he’s not, and there’s no proof he is.
The Killian memo story is not the Ben Barnes story.
The Killian memo story has two parts:
1. Bush disobeyed a direct order.
2. Higher-level officers were pressured lower-level officers to falsely praise & cover-up for Bush.
That is not the Ben Barnes story.
Given the fact that the Killian documents were forged, it is not a story at all.
A retraction is in order.
Finally I know what I’m going to say in my email-to-CBS.
“There’s a negative review posted, written by “David Thomson.”
I’m thinking this is “our” David Thomson . . .”
Yup, that’s me. Hope you liked it.
I think the legal threat to Rather & CBS – civil & criminal – is the real reason Rather refuses to issue a full retraction. If he admits the docs are fake, he opens the door to investigators.
Everyone should check out Kerry Spot on the next move of the pajamahedeen against CBS:
oh-my-god:
also check out the new Bush ad.
it’s brilliant.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Default.aspx
ìIf he admits the docs are fake, he opens the door to investigators.î
I have just read William Safireís column. He agrees completely with me. Only a governmental investigation will likely scare these CBS people. The threat of a jail sentence is required in this instance.
Catherine:
Ben Barnes is obviously lying because:
(1) He claims that he got Bush into the Guard when he was Lieutenant Governor. But Bush went into the Guard in in May 1968 well before Barnes was even elected. At the time Barnes was in Geneva as a trade representative. Before that Barnes was in Brussels at NATO HQ.
(2) He claims that he got Bush moved up in the queue. However, there was no queue. Bush’s Squadron had a 17% vacancy rate at the time. There was no waiting list to jump over and therefore no assistance was needed.
At the very least, CBS news must present these facts to the public as part of the retraction.
David: This is not the thread to discuss AA but would like to state that the concept, while theoretically possible to construct a system that is fair, is racist in any form of implementation that we have tried. It presupposes the inferiority of the applicant pool and in any case encourages its beneficiaries to under perform because they know that they don’t have to be as qualified to get a job. This ripples down all the way to the start of schooling. Secondly, the only group where a case may be made for AA is African American descendents of slaves. People who trace their ancestry to free men of color, immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa should not benefit from these programs, as they should suffer no ill effects of American slavery. To argue that mere prejudice makes one eligible for AA would require quotas for Jews, Poles, Irish, Chinese, and Japanese etc. Today, three of the groups specified are specifically discriminated against in AA programs. Ultimately AA requires a South African style racial classification system. Another example of liberal concepts that are congruent with totalitarian government.
David T
The review is great!
Relevant to your qualified pro-affirmative action stance: a recent Eonomic View column about the difference in salary among people with the same education, experience and in the same position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/business/yourmoney/22vieww.html?pagewanted=print&position=
ìIt’s not what you know, Professor Arrow, a prolific theorist, suggests; it’s who you know.î
Conservatives often embrace the silly theory that everyone earns that they get. This is pure nonsense. At best, we earn no more than half of what we get in life. The rest of it is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Being born white and affluent dramatically increases the odds in oneís favor. The liberals, on the other hand, goofed up by placing unqualified minority candidates ahead of the line. Please note that this idiocy never occurs in sports. However, this is common throughout the rest of working society.
Jerry
Unbelievable.
They need to just close up shop and start over.
Via RCP, this NY Post piece places Rathergate in its rightful perspective, it is comparable to Watergate and in fact can be judged to be worse than Watergate by some relevant standards.
A federal investigation probably is warranted, the problem is, reminiscent of some Clinton probe excesses, there would be a strong likelihood such an investigation would become hyper-politicized and excessively media driven, obfuscating the core legal and basic constitutional infringements. Still, such an investigation is warranted, it’s not entirely improbable that landmark legal precedents could result (FCC/public airwaves issues, MSM/political party coordination or even collusion to impact a presidential race).
The times are a changin’, but if Rather/CBS escape thorough-going scrutiny, it will evidence the fact that the changes occurring are too little and too late in a pivotal arena of the public square and (obviously enough) during a critical period of our history.
OK, I think we all agree we should not divert this thread to a blow-out over affirmative action, BUT since I see an opening, I’m greenlighting myself to mention yet again my own particular hobby horse:
education
No Child Left Behind
Once I realized how great NCLB was, I began to see Affirmative Action as almost a ploy to avoid doing what needs to be done to create equality between the races in this country.
What needs to be done is: school choice, research-based curriculum, NO CONSTRUCTIVIST TEXTS EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES . . . I could go on, but you get the picture. (btw, I’ve just come across a peer-reviewed study, done in the Netherlands, showing that disadvantaged children do much better with “direct instruction” than with constructivism.)
As the champions of Affirmative Action, Democrats are able to avoid confronting their responsibility for failed public schools that guarantee disadvantaged blacks will continue to need Affirmative Action.
And then there is this. New York Daily News interviews New Yorkers about Rather and found them quite forgiving. Here is one brilliant observation:
“Everything they said about Bush is true; they just haven’t found the evidence yet.” – Dale Channer, 34, florist, the Bronx.
Catherine:
Is “Dale” a product of a constructivist education? BTW, I’ve enjoyed your posts greatly over the past months, especially the ones on education. If I may be so bold – you aren’t in some way associated with Diane Ravitch are you?
David:
Excuse me, but you have identified the one factor that makes the biggest difference, i.e., being affluent regardless of what Balkanized group you belong to. It also helps to have two birth parents at home regardless of race and income. Your claim that you only deserve half of what you get in life is charitably based upon John Rawls. Rawlsí theory of justice is merely another attempt to justify the socialist state.
I am quite affluent and I come from a father raised in s single parent home (his father died when he was 1) with a 9th grade education and a mother who is hillbilly from Saskatchewan. I have what I have through my own hard work. Whatever networking I have been able to do is based on my past performance. Life is not fair, accept it and move on. All attempts to make it fair and lie along Hayekís ìroad to serfdom.
They have hillbillies in Saskatchewan? The things you learn from blogs…
Well, its a figure of speech, since there are very few hills in there.
PeterArgus
LOL!
Yes, indeedy, yon Dale is a Constructivist Baby!
(Just joking.)
As to Diane Ravitch, I’m thinking my husband may have known her back when he was working on the California standards. He thought she was great.
I’ve never met her, though.
I’m planning to read both of her books, however.
Thanks for the compliment!
My discovery of education politics has been a nice time for me, since–and I’ve mentioned this before–I had been subliminally assuming that the “achievement gap” was Huge and Hopeless, i.e. caused by vast cultural dysfunction that would be virtually impossible to address.
Suddenly I see that’s b*s.
When you look at folks like Rafe Asquith & Jaime Escalante you realize the “liberal” approach to racial inequality is wrong and, frankly, obnoxious.
How do these “miracle” teachers do what they do?
They put in the time.
After-school hours, Saturday hours. The kids are in there working.
They don’t reform the families, or engage in drug counseling, or lobby government for more money or smaller class size (which is not to say neither man could make good use of more money & smaller class size).
They teach well, and they put in the time.
“There are no shortcuts.”
They could retract, but it’s far too late to do Kerry any good. Danron seems to have put the finishing touch on his chances. The futures market has a pretty good record of prediction, and Kerry has plummeted, after a peak “odds” of about 51 percent in July at the convention. Seating Michael “Americans are stupid cowards” Moore in the place of honor was the beginning of the end.
I just put up a time-line-versus-odds graphic on how to lose an election, if you’re interested. Graphing the futures prices in the Iowa Election Futures Market against stupid campaign decisions. Michael Moore and Dan Rather have handed the election to Bush, in my opinion.
David Thomson/Catherine:
Last on Zelnick. You have to admire a guy who in 1996 [ the Age of Clinton Americanus] takes off on affirmative action in a book by Regnery when he was working for ABC/Disney and then gets the boot. Not stupidity, plain guts !! So much for freedom of speech; just not on the Eisner/Jennings watch.
The Bush ad is priceless: Glamour Boy in Nantucket harbor on his sail board doing the modern image of JFK in his sail boat. His image makers must have taken a day off on that one. How will that play in Moline or Akron ?
It sure did not pass on the Bush campaign to ignore the image, they ran with it, tied it with the flip flop and produced just the image America wants to see in this time of terror: the PlayBoy of the West. What were they thinking ?
ìYour claim that you only deserve half of what you get in life is charitably based upon John Rawls. Rawlsí theory of justice is merely another attempt to justify the socialist state.î
I am a savage critic of John Rawls. Some folks consider my rhetoric concerning the late Harvard philosopher as intemperate and even a bit nasty. Rawls was a second rate mediocrity who got away with a lot of silly statements because of his Harvard pedigree. Nonetheless, human institutions are imperfect and please note that my premise demands that the minority candidate earn their spot in the workplace. We should not cut them any slack for their deficiencies.
jedrury
The other salient feature of the ad is its light tone.
I’ve been reading lately that swing voters really do not like negative campaigning–”really do not like” meaning that apparently swing voters will actually vote for the less-negative, more-positive campaigner.
That’s as opposed to the rest of us, who tell pollsters we don’t like negative campaigning, then go out and vote for whoever’s campaign splattered the most blood all over the walls. (I know that’s what I’m looking for in a president! Blood splatter!)
Bush now, supposedly, is presenting himself as positive, not negative, and the Kerry windsurfing ad allows him to shoot the guy between the eyes without anyone noticing he’s standing there holding a smoking gun in his hand.
(Don’t you love the smiling photo of Bush & Laura on their porch with the “I’m George W. Bush and I approved this ad” VO?)
Apparently the Republican convention, apart from Cheney & Miller, took the same tack. Humorous takedowns.
David
You maybe a “savage critic” of Rawls but your 50% unearned position is in perfect agreement with his underlying assumption.
I do not accept Rawls’ position as valid but he was hardly a mediocrity. I believe he provided a much stronger philosophical underpinning for Socialism than Marx and his descendents.
Sam_S
Fabulous!
I’d been doing something like this myself, inside my head—–I love it!
“I have what I have through my own hard work.”
You are only half right. God also blessed you with a fine mind. Also, neither of us was born in the slums of Calcutta. Bill and Melinda Gates will be able to provide their children with every conceivable opportunity. Still, there is a possibility that they may decide to be like Paris Hilton.
Sam_S
The only thing you left out is that Kerry’s numbers dropped as soon as Edwards gave his acceptance speech, then dropped again after Kerry gave his acceptance speech.
(At least, that’s what I picked up the time I tried to do this.)
Sam, good chart and a nice blog, Sam.
I was very moved by the picture of Granny Liu. I only hope that she does not hand all her charity earning to ungrateful son-in-law, who then beats and starves her.
So much for being a mean Republican. All talkÖ
Catherine:
Yes, the beginning of the ad is so warm and cuddly. Golden Morning in America with W and Laura.
Very good !!!
Catherine,
Thanks for that quotation from Arrow.
This is supposed to be surprising? Everyone in business knows that business thrives on personal contacts and networking. So, for that matter, does academia, they’re just not as upfront about it. It’s rather obvious that when you increase demand for your services by increasing the pool of “consumers” for your services then, in a supply-and-demand economy, the price of your services will go up.
One thing that has always irritated me about those studies which look at, say, number of years of experience, number of years of schooling, etc., in order to assess whether people are “fairly” paid, is that there are an unlimited number of variables which matter beyond these easily measurable ones. For example, do you come to work on time?, are you easy to get along with?, do you take responsibility?, are you willing to go the extra mile when necessary?, etc. All of these things matter quite a bit and have a big effect on ones success in the work-world. But these things are hard to even qualify, let alone measure. Whenever disparity is found based on the standard variables, the conclusion is that there is some sort of unseen prejudice. This view has even been enshrined in court cases. That however doesn’t follow from the facts.
The truth is that in a competitive business environment businesses are going to do very well at picking individuals who do well at the job, or they are going to go out of business. Only in monopolies like the Post Office or the public school system can the institution afford to hire unqualified individuals.
on officially investigating cbs and dan for fraud and forgery etc etc, who would do it? elliot spitzer in ny? the fbi? who would be the enforcement arm of the law? we don’t want the spitting match of a congressional hearing in the commerce and telecom committees. we want subpoenas, attorneys, and the prospect of jail time. think martha and enron.
David:
I remember when my boss at OP-96 (Navy staff) was briefing a requirement. He was asked why 90% of the requirement was not good enough. He answered: “Well Admiral I guess it could be, but it looks to me that you can’t meet your campaign goals unless its all there.”
Point of the parable. If 10% can critical 50% is decisive. If you can control 50% of your destiny then can control essentially all of it.
Our entire public education system is now based on the half unearned theory you exposit. Public education is there to level the human captial across social classes. The problem is that there exists a private school alternative, which by the way is affordable by almost anybody, i.e., the Catholic School system, which gives either by parental decision or wealth/access a self-selecting few superior human capital. Why do you think that the education establishment seeks to eliminate honors programs, private school advantage and Home Schoolers? It prevents the implementation of socialism.
As far as me being grateful the I wasn’t born in the slums of Calcutta, big deal. I wasn’t and I don’t feel guilty. As a matter fact I have met a number of people from the Slums of Calcutta over the years. They seemed to be nice people who somehow managed to get Ph’Ds, law degrees and live nice affluent American lives.
My favorite part of the “Fortunate Windsurfer” ad is the part where Kerry is going one direction and the big ferry representing the rest of the country, which knows which way it wants to go, is powering on past him.
Catherine:
I think a retraction from CBS is needed. Rather needs to say that he was wrong, the story is crap and he allowed his patisan prejudice to get the batter of him.
It is not as if the whole damn world does not know what he did. Pretending to be fair and just sorta duped is not going to cut it.
How many other times has he done this kind of thing and we did not find out it was bogus?
I hear Mapes got in some other trouble in Colorado by breaking the rules at a prison. She seems to be kinda cavalier about the whole rules thing…
I wonder how much of the Abut Ghraib story was juiced up? They had a choice there, let the army prosecute these people and report on the story or go that extra mile and publish the pictures and maximize the damage. They chose the latter knowing we had men in the field.
To what purpose? It is obvious they have betrayed the public trust, and not for the first time I am sure.
With regard to an investigation, I think it’s a bad idea, for two reasons. First, it shifts the focus of public debate from what CBS did, to what the feds are doing to CBS. Second, as bad as the CBS fraud is, I’m very leery of having the feds insert themselves into the arena of public discourse, and attempt through laws and court cases determine what is permissible speech. An investigation of CBS could give an unscrupulous administration (e.g., President Hillary Clinton) a terrible weapon against its critics.
The truth is that CBS has already been investigated in the sphere of public discourse, and found guilty. Its reputation is shattered; Rather and all others associated with this story are laughingstocks. We the People have made our judgement – one from which there is no appeal.
Sam_SM
Love your blog!
Brown Line
I agree. Let free speech counter free speech and keep the government out of it.
I think we should declare the media as 527′s and leave it at that. As of now there is no law barring coordination between the media and campaigns. But we can no longer trust the ethics of journalists.
If the only thing that comes out of this is media outlets declaring their bias upfront I’d be satisfied.