In the aftermath of the Rathergate Report, that is one of the things I am trying to figure out. To be clear, I am not talking about the bias issue. Although I assume CBS was biased (what news outlet isn’t?), legally there has to be a true smoking gun for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and there may not have been one here. But in the real world, nobody takes the lack of bias claim seriously anyway. It’s just silly. Sure, CBS is biased. So is Fox News and so am I. Onwards.
The lie that concerns me is the one that might actually have some public effect–that there was no proof that the National Guard documents were forgeries. It’s amazing Thornburgh and Boccardi could assert this with a straight face, considering their own expert–the only one they cite in their own appendix–says the exact opposite, just as every other reputable typography expert does without any of them being contradicted except in the most inept manner. And even those few paltry contradictions have failed completely and vanished from view. That the Bush guard documents are authentic is about as likely as a Vermeer being painted by blind monkeys–no, less likely. It’s beyond “reasonable doubt.” It’s no doubt (unless you believe some Vietnam era National Guard officer took a time machine forward to the days of Microsoft Word 7.0 to fill out the documents and then returned.)
And yet in this case lack of proof is being asserted by a former Attorney General of the United States. Why? It’s hard to imagine what was going through Thornburgh’s head. Is he such a Luddite he couldn’t comprehend the evidence, which most junior high school computer users would understand in one minute? Well, I suppose that’s possible – and maybe that’s why he was chosen. But if so that’s pretty pathetic. I’d like to think he was being bribed by someone at CBS, because it’s the only explanation that makes any rational sense.
UPDATE: Van Gordon Sauter, a blast from CBS’ past, blasts the present. (HT: Mark Moore)
Is he such a Luddite he couldn’t comprehend the evidence, which most junior high school computer users would understand in one minute?
NO WAY! Dick Thornburg is a very smart man. I think he is somewhat cut out of the same mold as Tom Kean of New Jersey, (Though Tom was much more effective but we are talking life and death in that case). Anyway he is going to tend to be very understated and “conservative”. I will say I very much disagree with this and find it discouraging but I will add that I do believe this will only serve to keep the door open and leave it all unresolved.
In a sense he did CBS the greatest disservice because by not forcing their hand and instead giving them such favorable benefit of the doubt he has left CBS open to further criticism and all very much unfinished. In the end CBS was actually the most damaged by this because they are still saddled with Rather and the whole cloud this episode brought forth remains. As my father always advised… “Be careful what you wish for.” Maybe CBS got what they wished for yet I somehow think they aren’t going to like it.
Columnist Tony Blankley addressed this point very well in his Washington Times column. He suggests that the “Independent Panel” wasn’t independent at all but working for CBS, so they had to keep their client’s best interests in mind. IMO, by refusing to state plainly that the documents were forged they protected CBS law suits or even criminal prosecution. CBS’s response to the reports of firing 4 people sounds tough on first hearing, but in fact this is the absolute minimum the panel could have found while still retaining any credibility. Anyway, here’s the link for anyone who’s interested.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050111-083927-3688r.htm
Isnít Roger Simon aware of the holocaust deniers? What about Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and the whole postmodernist school of thought? The philosophical premise of radical skepticism is highly seductive when one wants to ignore reality. Nothing in this world is absolutely provable. Instead, we opt for reasonable certitude—if we wish to remain sane. Can I absolutely prove that all human beings die? No, but the evidence overwhelming indicates that this is so. The same holds true for the forged CBS documents.
Dick Thornburg is placed in an awkward predicament. He therefore momentarily adopts a radical skeptical perspective to reject the undeniable proof that these documents are forged. Why is this so important? Once again, I suspect that CBS might be in jeopardy of loosing its broadcasting license. This is a public privilege approved by the federal government. A TV network is suppose to remain politically neutral. And yet, numerous CBS employees obviously tried to destroy a sitting president. I find it somewhat bizarre that virtually nobody else is addressing this issue. Am I getting too carried away with my FCC theory?
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that a lifetime bureaucrat hasn’t the stomach for truth, real controversy or an unpopular position (in my his own milieu).
In another matter, it’s the same cowardly impulse that accounts for the opposition to the war in Iraq.
It appears obvious why Dick Thornburg is playing it this way – his law firm does not want to risk stating the obvious for fear of being shutout for future opportunities to get significant additional work from CBS, or the CBS parent, Viacom.
I’m disappointed too, but not at all surprised. What did you expect from a pack of lawyers hired and paid by CBS itself? This was pretty clearly a case of “admit what’s obvious, but don’t provide anything that could be used to sue us.” Mission accomplished.
More:
http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/01/cbs-report-what-im-only-getting-to.html
Here’s what astounds me:
Shouldn’t every journalist and professional journalist board be decrying the new standard set by CBS (and Thornburg, by implication)? That new standard is: It’s up to our detractors to provide evidence of the documents’ falsity.
The standard in law and journalism has always been that the presenter must prove documents are genuine—thru showing their provinence, expert opinion, contemporaneous testimony, etc.
CBS’s attempts to do this failed miserably. Not one of their defenses has held up, thus they’ve offered NO evidence that these documents are genuine. Now they turn the standard on its head and place the burden on others to prove the documents are forgeries.
I would think the entire journalistic profession would find this appalling.
If the CBS experts had all opined the documents were real, would Thornburgh have been unable to conclude that the documents were real?
Had Mr. Thornburgh presented the expert testimony to a jury, only to have the jury conclude the documents were real, would he have been shocked?
This report is interesting; the conclusions are pathetic and weak.
Thornburg may be “a very smart man” but that doesn’t disqualify him from possible Luddite status. The original Ned Ludd may have been feeble-minded, but the weavers who subsequently went around smashing looms and burning factories weren’t. They weren’t even anti-technology – they were trying to keep wages and employment up by destroying labor-saving machinery. Modern usage refers to those who are technologically averse, but not necessarily dumb.
Pedantic Police, signing off.
Blankley, CN and Patrick have it, I think.
Blankley’s point is that the “Panel” [ of 2!] hired Thornburgh’s law firm to actually conduct the investigation, and Blankley presumes that CBS is paying everyone’s bills.
Believe it or not, most lawyers have a deeply-ingrained awareness that they owe some deadly serious duties to each of their clients: a fiduciary duty of absolute loyalty and fidelity to the client’s interests,the highest standard of care imposed by law [like partners to each other, trustees to their beneficiaries, parents to their children, etc] and a duty to keep client confidences sacrosanct.
Although these lawyers — excepting Thornburgh himself– were ostensibly eworking for the 2-person “panel” they had to know who was paying the bills. In determining the existence of an attorney-client relationship, the payment of a fee is one of the factors considered. Even assuming these lawyers were told to be brutally honest and that they should “let the chips fall where they may”, it would have been hard indeed for themm to have made recommendations or proposed findings that had catastrophic implications for CBS. It would also have been hard to kill a golden egg-laying goose.
It would be interesting to know whether CBS was a client of this law firm before the scandal and just as interesing to know how much business they get from CBS in the future.
ìNow they turn the standard on its head and place the burden on others to prove the documents are forgeries.î
And these ìothersî did prove that the documents are forgeries. Dick Thornburg and his associates are indulging in radical skepticism to get around this fact. A moderate realist has no problem whatsoever in admitting the obvious. The postmodernist mindset is all about finding ways to ignore reality.
There is little political reason to push the fraud angle.
Bush won the election, CBS has lost its reputation, Burkett is ruined, if he wasn’t already.
The only folks who might be interested in persuing are the liberals, who might still believe Karl Rove or one of his operatives were Lucy Ramirez, who gave Burkett the tainted bait.
Now that would be funny!
Thornburgh is a former prosecutor. Prosecutors are almost always willing to reach an agreement for a guilty plea to lesser charges. If the report had affirmed forged documents, CBS would have been opened to criminal and civil actions. The delay in the release of the report may have been due to negotiations with CBS on what they would agree to, to avoid protracted legal wrangling.
When Major League Baseball approached Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis to clean up the Black Sox scandal they offered him a two-year contract. Landis told them that a man concerned about his next paycheck is not going to be independent. CBS didn’t want Landis they wanted Cadillac Bud Selig. What’s so hard to understand about that?
“The purpose of this investigation is to produce a report.” (Robert Blakey to his staff, 1976)
Do you understand?
OK, CBS has presented its little dog and pony show. Now it’s time for the FCC to conduct a real investigation…
By declining to state definitively that the documents were forgeries, Thornburgh has handed CBS a hook on which to hang its refusal to reveal its sources for the documents.
If there is a theoretical possiblity that the documents are real, and confidentiality was promised to the source, then CBS can be expected to do anything it can to protect the source (assuming that it wishes to do so). If the documents are conceded to be false, then there is no principle that would permit CBS to avoid naming the party that defrauded it.
Cui bono?
As to that old canard about most people dying, my understanding is that there are more people alive today than cumulatively throughout human history. If this is true, then it is equally true that most people who have been born have not, in fact, died. I’m cautiously optimistic.
“raf” has it.
The whole episode leaves CBS and/or the reporters involved exposed to a surprising (to me) number of potential criminal charges, including a curious Texas forgery statute that automatically assumes criminal intent if two or more documents are involved. BummerDietz at Scylla & Chraybdis has a roundup of potential charges in his post Memogate Legal Analysis- Greatest Hits, and I bloviated on why the report is “lawyer speak,” not real reporting, on this thread at Daily Pundit. (Where another poster brought up the point that “Admissions as to state of mind or statements against one’s interest are admissible hearsay.”)
Roger:
I think that the Blankley column hits the nail on the head. One thing that occurred to my lawyer’s brain while reading the report was that if I were ever called to investigate and issue a public report on the wrongdoings of my own client, I would really feel that I was in a terrible position. If the client were to say, “You can disclose these facts here, but don’t go beyond here in reaching your conclusions,” that would be it; I could absolutely not go beyond those parameters.
And even if my client gave me freign reign to publish whatever conclusions I reached, I would still be under a fiduciary obligation to consider exposure to civil or criminal liability, as well as regulatory scrutiny.
I suspect that the delay in releasing the report may have been because the first draft was far too hard-hitting for CBS to be able to stomach, and so a negotiation commenced over how to tone it down. Another possibility is that Thornburgh decided that it was safer to declare himself “agnostic” on the hot-button issues.
That’s “free reign…”
I really shouldn’t try to write and talk on the phone at the same time…
How many times did the name Rather appear on the “Report of the Independent Review Panel” “investigating” the 60 minutes segment “For the record” about Bush TexANG service? – 268.
Number of times the name Mapes is mentioned? – 895.
Number of times the word forgeries and combinations thereof appears on the report? 19.
The word fraud? A grand total of 1.
The abilities to hire your own lawyers to investigate yourself? ? Priceless.
CBS has its privileges, for everything else use the BLOGS.
Nixon, Simpson, Rose, Clinton, Rather.
We’ve seen this story before.
PVW
It’s a lot simpler than what relationship Thornburg has with CBS.
This report is PR damage control, executed by CBS.
How ’bout we go back in time four years and visit the ENRON situation?
“The independent Enron Shareholders’ Review Board, chaired by a senior partner of Ken Lay’s personal law firm and an emeritus board member (retired, 1999) of Enron’s accounting department, have determined that competition and poor business decisions account for the corporation’s current cashflow problems. Four assistant vice presidents have been asked to resign.
Mr. Lay praised the efforts of the Board and assured stockholders that in the future conditions would certainly improve.”
CBS has done the same thing.
The TANG story was not an aberration. It was business as usual until they got caught.
I agree with the proposition that this abortion represents the best desperate balance between PR and shielding from criminal culpability that Black Rock could come up with.
How does one go about filing an ethics complaint with the bar in New York? That should be the first step. I also think that if CBS wasn’t already preparing to get out of the news business they would have called Dan in Thailand and fired him; leaving him hanging around in the news room after this is a clear statement they just don’t care about journalism.
I think I hope the FCC doesn’t get involved in this. That runs the risk of being political and unseemly. The White House has been ‘above this’. Nothing unseemly has been done by the government. I think we’ve probably already heard the strongest statement the WH is going to make. At worst, the WH looks like it was a bit naive and got caught flat-footed. In this case, I don’t think that’s a sin.
From their perspective, Tricky Dan’s head has already cleared the left field bleachers, and he’s no longer worth worrying about.
This one is ours.
Thornburg is playing by the old rules. He is an Establishment figure covering for others in the Establishment — Dan Rather and the executives at CBS.
In the old days, when things were more bipartisan, people of both parties looked out for one another. This was based on self-interest and a presumption that those on the other side of the aisle were responsible, well-intentioned people who simply had differing ideas.
Thornburg doesn’t really understand the new hyperpartisan environment — he sees it on TV, but it doesn’t jive with his personal experience — but the people wrapped up in the scandal, like Rather, are people he knows and considers his peers.
He doesn’t understand how the MSM and liberals, who he still considers “worthy adversaries,” have gone off the deep end and are no longer responsible or well-intentioned. He knows that CBS threw its professional standards out the window, the evidence is staring him right in the face, but he just can’t believe that his old friends from the golf course or wherever have become bitter, hyperpartisan, and unstable. So he’s covering for them. He knows they blew it, and big time, but he still considers them respectable and therefore is helping them out.
He doesn’t have to violate any of his fiduciary duties as an attorney to achieve this; he simply needs to write a lengthy report which lays out the facts in a dry manner, and that is exactly what he has done. As for not declaring the documents forgeries, well, it’s not his job to weigh evidence; he’s thare to present the facts.
That’s what is going on here.
Ah geez, here I am about to defend Richard Thornburgh…
Probably. Not. A. Good. Idea. Especially since, like I’m sure most of us, I haven’t read the report in its entirety. But here goes anyhow.
Of course the burden of proof was never on anyone to conclusively show that the alleged memos were forgeries. In fact the burden of proof was always on CBS to show that they were genuine. And the Thornburgh report clearly indicates that CBS failed to do that in about the most comprehensive way possible.
So let’s be clear: The issue isn’t whether the memos are forgeries, but whether CBS did its job in trying to verify their authenticity. And Thornburgh’s panel went forward addressing that question alone.
Therefore what the Thornburgh panel spent its time investigating was a rather (so to speak) narrow issue: CBS News’ behavior. And it apparently confined itself to that issue… and said that CBS came up short by every reasonable professional measure. Motivations behind and the truth or untruth of the suspect report’s allegations weren’t the issue at hand.
As to the statement that there was “no proof” that the memos are forgeries, well, technically that’s true. As far as I know, no one has admitted writing the memos. No one has found a “smoking gun” (like Bill Burkett on video typing away on a computer at Kinko’s the night before the memos were released). And since no one has ever produced an original document in this case (it was all copies) it’s pretty much impossible to “prove” they’re forgeries (or copies of forgeries).
It’s all very lawyerly-like hair splitting, but that’s the business lawyer and renowned hair-splitter Dick Thornburgh is in.
Having written all that, let me add that of course they’re forgeries. And I think if you asked Dick Thornburgh in some unguarded moment what he thought they were more likely forgeries or genuine he’d come down on the side of rationality.
Now if Thornburgh had been hired to determine whether the documents were genuine or forgeries, he would have written a very different report.
So i don’t think the “no proof” statement is so much a lie as it is an admission that they didn’t address that question — or even try to address it.
I’m open to being proved wrong on this. And I’ll keep my standards of proof really, really low.
Would Richard Nixon have appointed Jerry Ford, an honorable man, to replace Spiro Agnew if he had not had been assured that a presidential pardon would be issued should the worse come?
Would C-BS have proceeded with this “investigation” without similar assurances? “Dog and pony show” about covers it.
As for Mr. Thornberg, it’s difficult to find a former Washington player who doesn’t want to play again. And what lawyer worth his salt can’t plead any side of an argument. Too bad for Thornberg that the side he was expected to plead in this argument was so laughably weak.
The real question is: Will CBS succeed in escaping it’s well deserved punishment?
I agree with another writer who compares the CBS reaction to the Boston diocese cover-up of it’s huge numbers of pedophile priests. (If I recall, that was Tony Blankley’s article in the Washington Times).
Bernard Cardinal Law was eventually forced to admit to years of lying about various priestly pedophile cover-ups and resigned in disgrace. Les Moonves, Andrew Heyward and Dan Rather are still lying at CBS. What is the difference? I see NONE.
I would like to see CBS lose ALL BROADCAST rights, licences, etc. They are the al-Jazeera of America. It is long past time to eliminate them TOTALLY.
Of course, the fakery of the memos CAN be proved by typographical analysis, even though originals are not available. Paper and ink analysis is not required in the face of absolute evidence that these docs could NOT have been created in the 70s. However, there is also proof that the memos are fake supplied by many people who wrote or processed TANG documents at the time . . . they state that these memos are completely inconsistent with TANG style, that ‘memo’ was not used, that physicals were never ‘ordered’ for pilots, and cite many other details of both style and content that show the memos could not be authentic. This is rarely discussed. It’s as if someone presented a copy of contemporary rap lyrics written in pseudo-Elizabethan script and claimed they were authentic to the era.
Excellent point JB. Why is it necessary for us to prove that the documents were forged, especially given the way the documents mysteriously appeared. Isn’t it incumbent upon CBS to prove that they are genuine? I realize that this is not a court of law, but this is equivalent to making a defendant prove that he is innocent as opposed to the prosecutor proving that he is guilty of the crime. Why should we start from the premise that anything that appears is genuine? And wasn’t it just too convenient that Burkett deliberately destroyed the original documents handed to him so that they could not be validated.
Thornburg is part of the go along to get along wing of the Republican party whose modern day counterparts are RINOs.
They never really wanted to be in power and have to govern, make decisions and decide policy. They only wanted to be where the power is and make money while pretending to be the loyal opposition.
These include Dole, Hatch, Lott, etc.
Why Did Dick Thornburg Lie?
Well, if lying were a criminal offense, no prosecutor would convict him based upon the report. He didn’t lie, he just lowered whatever public esteem his name carried by serving his client in precisely the manner which the legal professions canon of ethics prescribes. His reputation among lawyers will not suffer and lawyers reputations have reached a point where further ridicule is superfluous. Process has been served and only a fool thinks that law is about justice.
CBS got precisely the report that it paid for and dead media is forming a circle of silence to protect it from its wounds just as a herd of wooly mammoths formed a circle of protection when a member was wounded. CBS has chosen to put a band-aid on a gangrenous wound. It’s their choice and they are going to have to die with it.
MSM journalists and certain classes of lawyers have worked very hard to achieve their current level of status in the eyes and minds of the public. Sometime soon live media is going to realize that respectful admiration for the depth of the hole is the only proper response to their actions.
As to the statement that there was “no proof” that the memos are forgeries, well, technically that’s true. As far as I know, no one has admitted writing the memos. No one has found a “smoking gun” (like Bill Burkett on video typing away on a computer at Kinko’s the night before the memos were released). And since no one has ever produced an original document in this case (it was all copies) it’s pretty much impossible to “prove” they’re forgeries (or copies of forgeries).John Pearley Huffman
————————————————
JPH,
Nice post, but you are wrong. One does not need a confession or a murder weapon or even a body to prove that a murder occurred.
In this case it has been established that the memos were not typed (or some expert in the field would have come forward and informed us all as to what kind of machine they may have been typed on.) Additionally, it has been conclusively shown that one can produce the exact same memos only by using a machine which was not available in 1972.
These facts alone -and these are facts- prove that the memos are forgeries. And there is all kinds of other circumstantial evidence, including provenance and content, from which one can come to no other rational conclusion but that they are forgeries. The case has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt- far above the criminal standard of reasonable doubt.
My comment above did not give proper credit to Hugh Hewitt for the CBS News vs Catholic church and Boston diocese pedophile priest cover-up comparisons. Those comparisons are VERY APT and VERY TRUE. CBS NEWS is just now at the beginning of it’s destructive path.
Hugh’s Weekly Standard article is:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/125amjyt.asp
Roger:
I don’t think that Thornburg lied but when he states that the forgeries can’t be proved to be so he must have known that he was giving Rather, Mapes and the rest of the posse a rhetorical gun to continue the charade that the memos could be accurate. If he would have stated that it was not his job to examine whether or not the memo’s were forgeries but to only examine the journalistic standards he could get away with saying nothing. But he seems to be trying to stand on both sides of the fence. He should have investigated it thouroughly or left it alone. His attempt seems to be half ass sophistry.
I’m a lawyer, and I would have no problem concluding that the documents are likely forgeries. The canons of ethics don’t require this.
And besides, Thornburg wasn’t actually working as a lawyer when he authored this report. He wasn’t represneting CBS in court or before Congress; he’s not a judge. His work wasn’t goverened by the rules of civil procedure, the laws of evidence, etc. He didn’t sign the report under penalty of perjury either.
Thornburg was hired to write the report because he has a prestigious reputation and because lawyers are smart and have analytical minds. But he’s not actually litigating a case here; this is basically an interoffice memo which happens to be written by a lawyer.
Now, this report will end up in the public eye, and can conceiveably affect CBS stock prices, so Thornburg has to be careful not to lie or create any misleading impressions. That’s why he simply lays out the facts and refuses to draw any conclusions.
But he could have drawn conclusions if he’d wanted to.
That’s why I think he acting as a (as someone above put it) “get-along-go-along Republican” who was covering for his buddies in the Establishment.
Rick Ballard:
I rue the legal profession’s current reputation.
Like many lawyers I went into the practice of law thinking it to be among the most honorable and important of the “helping professions”. My role models– the images I held of lawyers as I entered law school– were Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch and Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow. And there are many, many talented, honest, great lawyers out there, hard at work for the good of our civilization and our society. I acknowledge though, that there are the others. I wish it was not so.
I think Thornburgh and his colleagues are probably reasonably honest, but found themselves caught in the bind discussed above in this tread.
Perhaps the problem here is that this was not a job that should have been done by lawyers at all. Wouldn’t it have been better for CBS to “suck it up” and do it’s own thorough house cleaning, a la Howell Raines at the NYT after the Jayson Blair scandal? Say what you will about Raines and his own political bias, THAT move showed integrity and class. That CBS wouldn’t or couldn’t follow the Times’ example speaks volumes, in fact it almost says it all, does it not?
I am with JB on this, CBS made the claim, it is their job to back it up.
I think that all those high power Washington types are just covering for each other. It is ok to throw one of us in jail, but come on, Dan Rather and the guys at 60 Minutes are not peasants.
A slap on the wrist, a shame on you and no doubt the fall from grace is punishment enough.
Just another case of white collar crime.
I like John Pearly Huffman’s take.
But, it seems to me a lack of courage on Thornburgh’s part and makes him an enabler. But that’s my subjective view, of course.
Also I don’t care for the term ‘forgery’. Doesn’t that imply that these were knockoffs of ‘real’ documents? These are fakes, pure and simple.
Joe Schmoe,
Thank you for correcting me wrt the canon of ethics. I erroneously applied my understanding of a duty to perform having to do with defense to a non-judicial matter. I would suggest, though, that by not reaching a conclusion that would be obvious to most 10 year olds he has tarnished his prestigious reputation as well as that of his profession. He’s a former AG and he has done all attorneys a disservice with this report.
I rue the legal profession’s current reputation.
Carl, I rue it perhaps more than you do. I’ve dealt with more than twenty lawyers in various ways over the course of 30 years and have high opinions of all but 2 of them. I consider the law to be a true profession rather than a trade such as journalism. I fail to see how the status of the profession of law can be elevated when the primary focus remains process and justice is relegated to the status of some sort of obscure minutiae that is always regarded as subjective in nature. It is sad to see a fine profession sacrificed in the pursuit of a “higher” truth.
I would rather hear Thornburg’s answer to “What ethical/moral purpose or principle does your involvement in this report advance?” rather than “Why did you lie?” If he can’t give a decent answer to the purpose/principle question, then I would say that he no longer warrants a prestigious reputation.
Paul Volcker appears to be walking a similiar path and might give some consideration as to what type of conclusion his OFF report should reach.
Dan Rather remains ‘Queen of the Space Unicorns’ and who is to say otherwise.
David Thomson,
There’s no advantage to Bush or the Republicans in getting the FCC involved here. Michael Powell’s record in heading that organization is already badly tainted by his bizarre favoritism toward the big telco carriers, to the great detriment of broadband adoption and to the nation as a whole, so I don’t think the admin would want to touch this tarbaby. On top of which, CBS is melting down nicely as it is.
Seriously, is there anyone at Roger’s Place who has seen more than one CBS Nightly Newscast per week during the last year? Is there anyone under 40 in this country who has seen more than one CBS Nightly Newscast per month during the last year?
CBS News is about as vital and dynamic as Kmart. I think it likely that Viacom shareholders will either eliminate the anchor-as-god notion and the huge expense items associated with it or else sell the unit to the highest bidder. Probably to a middle-of-the road, apolitical entertainment company. Someone involved in theme parks, kids’ entertainment, video rentals, that sort of thing.
Wayne Huizenga’s a wholesome fellow. Maybe he’ll snap up CBS, and recycle old 60 Minutes episodes and Cronkite and Murrow broadcasts on DVD through his Blockbuster outlets. Bring the old folks into the stores! Leverage the channel to reach a new demographic.
Rick,
I would rather hear Thornburg’s answer to “What ethical/moral purpose or principle does your involvement in this report advance?” rather than “Why did you lie?” If he can’t give a decent answer to the purpose/principle question, then I would say that he no longer warrants a prestigious reputation.
Normally in the corporate sector when a company’s top management engages in massive misconduct, any review will accompany, at a minimum, a complete shakeup of senior management and an administration of harsh medicine. Business units are often folded or sold off; cooperation with prosecutors is welcomed. The goal is to completely cauterize the wound so as to allow the patient to recover. This is how Jack Welch of GE handled then-Prosecutor Giuliani’s investigation of GE’s Kidder Peabody financial unit.
But as we all know, CBS News is different. Even though their parent is a for-profit conglomerate no different from GE, the CBS News property is more than a business unit; it’s a national icon and a precious national treasure. So the harsh medicine that’s usually applied to a business unit and mgmt team that badly f*** up is not relevant here.
As with the Volcker commission, the overarching goal is to salvage the reputation of the iconic institution.
Not to fire anyone, and certainly not to assist in any prosecution or legal or congressional investigation. The question of whether the insitution’s leadership is so incompetent, corrupt or otherwise uncognizant of how its normal operating behavior runs afoul of its mission is not and never was on the table.
I have a slightly more charitable take on this issue. I suspect that Thornburgh & Boccardi probably considered that it wasn’t necessary for them to determine whether the documents were real or fake; on the contrary it had been 60 Minutes’ obligation to determine that the documents were real, which plainly wasn’t done.
I have to start with the presumption that Thornburgh and Boccardi know that the documents are obvious fakes. For legal and commercial reasons very ably noted by many commentators above, they decided that it was in their best interest to hide behind a thin veneer of plausible deniability. While I won’t pretend to understand the angles, I can assure you that these gentleman have their behinds covered six ways from Sunday. To answer Roger’s question, Mr. Thornburgh, didn’t “lie,” he…well I can’t say precisely what it was that he did, but I’m sure it he’s got seven escape hatches.
Which leaves for me the question of what in hell could CBS have been thinking about to release this silly load on us? I haven’t watched in years and still won’t, but this whitewash will surely hurt their already tanking ratings.
For some reason I recently watched, for the first time, the film Network from 1976.
It is an astonishing thing that Paddy Chayevsky seemed to clearly perceive that evening news “anchors” were already, in that era, a dying, rather ridiculous breed.
Jamie Irons
Jami:
I am mad as Hell and I am not taking it anymore.
or something like that. great movie.