Reply With Quote
It's gonna be a miserable 4 years for you isn't it Dan?
White House has bigger credibility problem than CBS
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
By Sally Kalson
What happens when you base a big project on questionable information?
Well, if you work for CBS News, you get a pink slip. If you work for George W. Bush, you get a promotion or a medal.
It's telling that this should be so, given that the stakes in the cases at hand are so wildly uneven.
The use of unverifiable do ents for a story about Bush's National Guard service 30 years ago was a huge blunder, to be sure, and CBS did what it had to do for the sake of its damaged credibility. It sought an outside investigation by former Attorney General Thornburgh and retired Associated Press President Louis Boccardi; the network adopted their recommendations and also fired the four people it held most accountable.
Yet in the hierarchy of screw-ups with serious repercussions for the country, that incident pales next to the bad intelligence and flawed assumptions that have informed our war in Iraq and all the fruit of its poisoned tree.
That would include 1,352 U.S. soldiers killed and 10,252 wounded in action so far; the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib; the Rumsfeld doctrine of going to war with too few soldiers and too little armor; the depletion of the National Guard; the back-door draft of the military "stop loss" policy; and the "de-Baathification" of Iraqi forces that experts believe has fueled the insurgency.
On a damage-to-America scale of one to 10, I'd have to rank the second scenario as a bit more critical than a badly sourced news story -- especially when that story was essentially an old one that viewers had either accepted or rejected many months earlier, based largely on their political predispositions.
It was news to no one that Bush used family connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid combat in Vietnam. In the partisan atmosphere of the 2004 campaign, nobody was going to vote for or against him based on whether he'd complied with all his military requirements at that time.
Thus, if the producers hoped to sway the outcome by rushing to air with the "smoking gun" memo right before the election (and the outside review said there was no evidence of a political agenda), they risked their careers for nothing. The story was essentially a big yawn.
Still, it did great harm to the integrity of CBS, and, by extension, the news media at large. Heads had to roll, and they did.
One might wish for the president of the United States to admit a fraction of the responsibility for his administration's mistakes, to hold his war architects and advisers at least as responsible as CBS has its producers.
Instead, Bush honored former CIA Director George Tenet with a Presidential Medal of Honor -- this to the man who called it "a slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed those missing WMDs. He nominated Alberto Gonzales, author of the infamous torture-justification memo, to be his next attorney general. And he continues to laud Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for doing "a great job," despite the secretary's callous comment to front-line soldiers in Iraq that their equipment was substandard because "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want."
What accounts for this contrast in responsibility-taking? The answer is one I've argued in this space before: Americans demand a higher standard of truth from the news media than they do from their political leaders. They expect politicians to lie, mislead and dissemble, and they expect the news media to catch them.
But even when reporters uncover such transgressions, it doesn't necessarily translate into changes in policy or admissions of guilt. That has certainly been true of this president, who values loyalty above competence and evidences not the slightest inkling of his own fallibility. Now that the voters have seen fit to re-elect him, the nation can expect the same, only more so.
We can only imagine what kind of report Thornburgh and Boccardi would assemble on the administration's conduct of the war. Five'll get you 10 they'd find a lot more guns smoking in the White House than they ever did at CBS.
---
Post-Gazette.com
It's gonna be a miserable 4 years for you isn't it Dan?
What happens if you botch a news story? People get angry.
What happens if you don't take threats seriously? People get killed.
Whether you agree or disagree with either, each has a completely different set of responsibilities and priorities than the other, so the comparison is a stretch.
Aren't both ultimately responsible to the people they serve though? CBS has admitted it's mistakes and taken corrective action to insure that this sort of thing is less likely to happen again. However, With the nomination of Yes-men White House Counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, isn't W setting up the likely hood that this will happen again?
Where is the disingenuous disgust and moral outrage from the right?
Two things Dan,
1. The responsibilities of both en ies are entirely different. I think that Spurm covered that. Does CBS serve the public or do they serve their advertisers?
2. Does someone who agrees with you or has similar principles a yes man? Why wouldn't the president appoint people who thought like him or held his parties values and ideals?
Not since CBS uses the free public airwaves to distribute its product. Both en ies have responsibilities to the public they serve to be as truthful and transperant as possible.The responsibilities of both en ies are entirely different. I think that Spurm covered that. Does CBS serve the public or do they serve their advertisers?
Well, Americans had an opportunity to decide whether or not to hold President Bush accountable, and pretty much everyone, excluding the most delusional on the left, has accepted that the public, by a narrow but decisive margin, chose to retain him despite their reservations about his performance.
CBS, on the other hand, has been hemorrhaging ratings for its newscasts.
Perhaps the problem is that far too many of us are too stupid to understand the enlightened leftist perspective you broadcast to us. Perhaps I could suggest finding a more suitable country in which to live.
That's just it, Gonzales has never not disagreed with W on anything. (I know a double negative, but hey live with it). His memo on torture and prisoner abuse set the tone by the administration in the Abu Gharib scandal and the yet to be clearly unveiled abuse at Guantanamo and Diego Garcia.Does someone who agrees with you or has similar principles a yes man? Why wouldn't the president appoint people who thought like him or held his parties values and ideals?
Don't mean he has never disagreed with him? Why the extra "not"?
If you would look back to what I was saying again. Can two people not agree on things the same way? Maybe he is a yes man, maybe he was chosen just because he thinks the same way. Is the president supposed to pick people who have totally different political agendas than him? I don't think it's that big of a deal to surround yourself with people who have similar beliefs.
Did Americans really decide to keep W or did the voting machines utilized in the election decide for us? Since there is no verifiable paper-trail I guess we will truly never know, right?
I bet if right-wing radio had been beating the administrations lack of credibility over and over again like it has beating the war-drums against CBS and Dan Rather, more people would place these two incidents in more proper prospective. CBS's misjudgments didn't get anyone killed, W's did.
What is it about right-wingers that they are always decrying their own mental incapacities? Envy maybe?
If I'm CEO of a company, which is essentially what W is, I would want opposing views to make sure that I am pursuing the best direction possible for my company. It's one thing for everyone to be on the same page, but totally another for opposing views to be silenced by threat or intimidation.If you would look back to what I was saying again. Can two people not agree on things the same way? Maybe he is a yes man, maybe he was chosen just because he thinks the same way. Is the president supposed to pick people who have totally different political agendas than him? I don't think it's that big of a deal to surround yourself with people who have similar beliefs.
What does free public airwaves have to do with anything? I can go outside and yell a bunch of bull to people who walk by and not have any responsibility to the truth or the people who hear it. We don't hold elections for news anchors. They do not pass laws that govern us. Their existence relies totally on revenue generated by selling product to consumers. Those consumers are the people who run those adds, not me and you at home.
The goverment's true responsibility is to serve us it's cons uents. The news media's goal is to simply attract us to their forum.
If you don't think that CBS has a responsibility to the public then you are living in La-La land and there is no need to carry on this debate any longer. The only leg network news has to stand on is its credibility to the public. Broadcast regulations and standards are set by the FCC, so your comparison to someone simply shouting out things in public is intellectually dishonest at best.
I don't see the throngs pouring out into the streets to protest this allegedly stolen election. Despite George W. Bush being the absolute mostest worstest leader ever in all the history of the world, now with the election over, Americans -- even most of those disappointed with the result -- are just going on with their lives. I guess there is not much outrage. People accept the result.
Not that I would expect there to be much outrage. In most of the world if people really believe elections are stolen, they raise arms. They fight back. Leftism in America is predicated upon not having to fight for anything or believe in much of anything. It's built primarily upon maintaining a sense of moral superiority and victimhood, and doing whatever it takes in one's own mind to rationalize that, such as posting conspiracy theories on Internet message boards about black boxes and paper trails.
Only the very selct few who are mentally unhinged see the black helicopters. Yes, I am calling you mentally unhinged. You are like a walking caricature of what the Right would like to convince voters that Democrats are really like.
Right-wing radio openly admits that it is right-wing. It is partisan. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be an impartial observer. If right-wing radio drove down the middle or tried to be objective, it wouldn't be right wing, now would it?I bet if right-wing radio had been beating the administrations lack of credibility over and over again like it has beating the war-drums against CBS and Dan Rather, more people would place these two incidents in more proper prospective. CBS's misjudgments didn't get anyone killed, W's did.
What is it about right-wingers that they are always decrying their own mental incapacities? Envy maybe?
Nobody was complaining about Air America because it makes its partisan intentions clear. CBS News tries to maintain the pretense that is a impartial mainstream news organization. That pretense is false.
I understand how important it must be to you to label everyone who is not a far-leftist as a neocon or a right-winger or whatever. You need to maintain a sense that you are smarter, wiser, and morally superior to those around you, and that they must really be jealous of you, in spite of evidence which demonstrates that their reactions alternate between disinterest and derision. It's all you have, really. Reattachment to reality could plunge you into a deep, deep depression.
Um, there are a lot of CEO's who don't want opposing views. They believe they are in that position because they are capable of making the decisions that are required of that position in their company. Some CEO's do follow what you are saying. I know this may be hard to swallow, but did you ever think Bush believes he is going about things in the right way? Is it possible he is choosing people who will aid him because they hold his same views. I'm sure he is aware of opposing views to his own. I can't believe he would not weigh such things before making a decision.
My guess is that Bush had advisors with opposing views in his first term, and that he needed that because he wasn't yet certain which course to plot with his foreign policy. Following 9/11, he decided the direction he wanted to go. With the stakes so high, the opposition among his advisors got to the point where it impeded getting things done.
Having been re-elected, Bush feels vindicated enough to execute his policy vision with like-minded people who won't step on each others' toes. The good thing it that it will be easier to get things done. The bad thing is that if he chooses the wrong thing, there is no nobody to mitigate the damage. If it goes to crap, he will suffer for it in the 2006 elections.
The only reason large-scale election inconsistencies and voter suppression aren't a bigger issue is because our MSM has been bought out by corporate interests who are looking out for their own interests and pocket-books before those of the public they are supposed to serve, even so far as to turn their backs on democracy. Governmental checks and balances that are supposed to protect us against this sort of thing have been broken down by one-party rule and political indimidation by the Domininist.I don't see the throngs pouring out into the streets to protest this allegedly stolen election. Despite George W. Bush being the absolute mostest worstest leader ever in all the history of the world, now with the election over, Americans -- even most of those disappointed with the result -- are just going on with their lives. I guess there is not much outrage. People accept the result.
Not that I would expect there to be much outrage. In most of the world if people really believe elections are stolen, they raise arms. They fight back. Leftism in America is predicated upon not having to fight for anything or believe in much of anything. It's built primarily upon maintaining a sense of moral superiority and victimhood, and doing whatever it takes in one's own mind to rationalize that, such as posting conspiracy theories on Internet message boards about black boxes and paper trails.
Only the very selct few who are mentally unhinged see the black helicopters. Yes, I am calling you mentally unhinged. You are like a walking caricature of what the Right would like to convince voters that Democrats are really like.
Here we go with the black-opts again...
Um, CBS chooses what stories to run does it not? It chooses those stories based not on which ones are the most true, but which ones will garner the most attention or ratings. CBS might choose to air a Michael Jackson story over one about world hunger even though the latter story is of much greater significance or importance. They are not serving the public, they are serving their advertisers who PAY them to get our viewship.
You just stated exactly what I've been saying. CBS is part of your MSM. They don't serve us the public. They serve the people who pay them, who own them. Now that might draw similarities to campaign contributions, but that is regulated, and not the same type of relationship.The only reason large-scale election inconsistencies and voter suppression aren't a bigger issue is because our MSM has been bought out by corporate interests who are looking out for their own interests and pocket-books before those of the public they are supposed to serve, even so far as to turn their backs on democracy. Governmental checks and balances that are supposed to protect us against this sort of thing have been broken down by one-party rule and political indimidation by the Domininist.
Here we go with the black-opts again...
Let's come up with some other ideas for stock Bush-bashing columns using non-related current events.
War in Iraq Worse than Pacers-Pistons Brawl
Ron Artest was suspended from the NBA for charging someone in the stands for supposedly throwing a cup of beer at him... But why don't we hold the President to the same standards for invading Iraq without an attack on the US?
Is Dubya Worse than Scott Peterson?
Scott Peterson received the death penalty for killing his wife and unborn child, yet George W. Bush gets to keep his job after killing thousands of innocent Iraqis. Where's the justice?
Refusing to be distracted by the Red Sox World Series victory
The Cardinals lost in the World Series, but when Dubya invaded Iraq, we all lost.
Dubya should be punished as severely as Martha Stewart
George W. Bush led the United States into a war under false pretenses and has been reelected to serve as Commander in Chief. Meanwhile, Martha Stewart serves time for insider trading, which killed nobody. Where is the justice?
BALCO investigation dwarfs Iraq Failures investigation
While so much time is spent to find out whether or not Barry Bonds has played baseball using illegal steroids, George W. Bush continues the flawed War in Iraq with little resistance.
First of all, comparing Air America to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and company is not a fair comparison because Air America doesn't have the backing of a behemoth like Clear Channel Communications backing it up. I'm sure that if AA got half the market saturation from CCC that they give these right-wing political hacks, they too would be argued against more vigilantly by the right.Right-wing radio openly admits that it is right-wing. It is partisan. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be an impartial observer. If right-wing radio drove down the middle or tried to be objective, it wouldn't be right wing, now would it?
Nobody was complaining about Air America because it makes its partisan intentions clear. CBS News tries to maintain the pretense that is a impartial mainstream news organization. That pretense is false.
I understand how important it must be to you to label everyone who is not a far-leftist as a neocon or a right-winger or whatever. You need to maintain a sense that you are smarter, wiser, and morally superior to those around you, and that they must really be jealous of you, in spite of evidence which demonstrates that their reactions alternate between disinterest and derision. It's all you have, really. Reattachment to reality could plunge you into a deep, deep depression.
I don't label people to feel intellectually superior, I let my arguments stand on that. I simply call them as I see them and so far the only opinions I have read from you are like a echo chamber from right-wing conservative radio.
Clear Channel owns several Air America stations.
Hey genious, reread my post again. I was decrying what the relationship between network news and the responsibility to the public has become, not cheering on that all of our MSM has been corrupted by the same en ies they are supposed to be helping to protect all of us from.You just stated exactly what I've been saying. CBS is part of your MSM. They don't serve us the public. They serve the people who pay them, who own them. Now that might draw similarities to campaign contributions, but that is regulated, and not the same type of relationship
CCC doesn't give anyone market saturation. By proving to advertisers that the money they spend results in higher sales, the shows in question earn market saturation.
Yes they do, but where is the market saturation that they gave Hannity and Rush when they were getting started? It's like OAI running 24-7 right-wing radio during the week and then giving a progressive voice like Lionel a Saturday spot that is consistently interrupted by sports and then calling that fair. Yeah right.Clear Channel owns several Air America stations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
