PressThink: Does CBS News Have a Political Future in This State?

Does CBS News Have a Political Future in This State?

The affiliates are hearing it. There's a campaign to get Bob Schieffer dumped from the debates. William Safire is asking about criminal charges. And some of the worst ever numbers for media trust were just released. From the CBS truth commission we need something... dramatic.

There are signs that the controversy is hurting CBS and anchor Dan Rather at the local level. Bob Lee, general manager of WBDJ-TV in Roanoke and president of the CBS Affiliates Association, said he has heard from many stations and “we’re all being battered.” —Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, Sep. 23

Two days ago, CBS announced its two-person truth commission. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General during parts of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and a former governor of Pennsylvania. Louis D. Boccardi, former chief executive of the Associated Press, where he worked for 36 years. (Press release.)

Not well known to the public, Lou Boccardi is a natural choice within the industry, and a proven commodity— “one of three outsiders who served last year on a committee with reporters and editors of The New York Times that investigated the repeated fabrications of a former reporter, Jayson Blair,” said the Times.

The Thornburgh appointment is the fascinating part. A politician. Former federal prosecutor and snarling TV commentator Victoria Toensing told Kurtz that Thornburgh is a good choice for CBS “because he’s a Republican, so it doesn’t look partisan the wrong way.”

Partisan the wrong way. Hmmm. Well, why name a politician at all? Why a Republican and why this one? Why not a Democrat? Why not a Democrat and a Republican? Isn’t balance a watchword anymore? What’s the thinking here, CBS? “CBS executives declined to elaborate on the selection of Mr. Thornburgh,” said the Journal Sep. 23. Not in a sharing mood, I guess. Mike Wallace had some thoughts, however: “It occurs to me that on the team of investigators should be someone who has experience with how a television piece is put together,” Wallace said. “He has none, as far as I know.”

It has seemed to me since the first weekend of this crisis that CBS was in political danger because of something that had gone wrong with its journalism. It had to fight a war for legitimacy and reputation, and that’s a political struggle, but since the news division was the one involved in the fight, CBS had to also claim that it had no politics at all. This is not a recipe for clarity.

It is the ruling fiction at a network news division: we’re professional news people, and we don’t “do” politics. Just the other day this was said. Spokeswoman Kelli Edwards on Sep. 21: “It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda.” She was reacting to news that Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign had been involved in a deal to secure the memos from CBS’s source, Bill Burkett.

It would be routine for CBS News to identify former Governor Richard Thornburgh as a Republican in any reporting it did. After all, he is one. But he’s not a Republican in the CBS announcement of the review committee. That word does not appear. One reason, I guess, is that CBS would have to provide Boccardi’s party affiliation if Thornburgh’s were given. And Boccardi doesn’t identify that way. He’s a newsie.

See the tension?

Because of that tension, which is at the very heart of this scandal, Thornburgh and Boccardi have a shot at pulling CBS through, but it will be very difficult given that we’re in a tense election. The first big decision they have to make is whether to finish a report before Election Day— a very tough call. A political decision, in fact.

But then so was the decision to have a review in the first place. For reasons not made clear at the time, Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, and Leslie Moonves, chairman of CBS Television and co-president of the CBS parent, Viacom, were allowed to define the scope of inquiry into events where they are implicated— heavily so.

Look at the charge that Heyward and Moonves gave the Committee, as per the CBS announcement on Sep. 22:

to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken.

This begins in the logical place: where were the screw ups in the story? It ends in the logical place: what do we do now to fix it? And it pretends that twelve days in the calendar don’t exist.

That would be the period from Sep. 9, when problems first emerged, to Sep. 20, when CBS announced that it no longer had confidence in the report it aired on President Bush and his National Guard service. Ernest Miller has a detailed timeline in two-parts: here and here. Only by reading these posts, and clicking through to the links, can an observer fully appreciate CBS’s stonewalling and why it matters.

My NYU colleague Adam Penenberg, writing in Wired, summarizes what went down:

At first, Rather refused to consider the possibility that CBS had been duped, brushing off both journalists, who he called “the professional rumor mill,” and bloggers, whose “motivations” he questioned.
Feeling the heat, CBS produced experts to buttress its story, only to have them recant. Some claimed they had warned CBS about the documents. Others believed they had been misled or their findings misinterpreted. Meanwhile, the Associated Press retained its own expert who concluded the memos had most likely been word-processed. ABC, CNN, NBC, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and USA Today weighed in on the growing media scandal — all of which prompted CBS to announce its own investigation.

What happened between those two dates (Sep. 9-20) is critical to the politics and the journalism of the story. And, of course, we find some critical actions taken—or not taken—by Heyward, as Dan Rather’s boss, and Moonves, head of CBS. Here are five clusters the review panel should investigate:

Who’s idea was it to allow the network’s star anchorman and public face, Dan Rather, to keep deepening his—and the brand’s—exposure to massive credibility loss by maintaining a pose of absolute certainty, and going out of his way to demean challengers or dismiss them as political hacks?

What did CBS hope to gain by having Rather explode in frustration across the news pages, simultaneously showing that he was mildly to wildly out of touch with his enviornment and with the status of a breaking story? (Most memorably when he said to Howard Kurtz on Sep. 15, “If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story.”) If someone at CBS wanted to have Rather publicly destroy himself, then for that purpose the network made the correct moves. But why would someone want to do that?

Who made the decision to say publicly there is no investigation underway at 60 minutes, when the only responsible option CBS had at that point was to investigate?

How did it come to pass that a group of employees at CBS News, associated with one program, 60 Minutes Wednesday, were allowed to use the CBS Evening News, another program, essentially to shore up the thesis for a story of theirs that was being attacked in a public controversy that had itself become news? Didn’t this turn the nightly newscast into an advocacy program? Isn’t that against the rules?

Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post put it this way in an online chat with Post readers Tuesday: “I had serious suspicions about the authenticity of the documents on the morning after they were aired. I find it difficult to believe that people in CBS did not develop similar doubts soon afterward.” What happened to those people within the organization, and why they did not get through to decision-makers? Jim Rutenberg, Sep. 19: “One mystery among CBS staff members is why network officials remained so confident for so long about the documents as so many questions arose.”

(I was trying to get the same point across in a post that asked: Did the President of CBS News Have Anyone in Charge of Reading the Internet and Sending Alerts?)

All five of my clusters ultimately involve judgments made by Heyward, as Rather’s boss, and Moonves, as Heyward’s. The investigation has to go there or it avoids many of the story’s scariest parts. But look at the official charge: “What errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken.” To me it’s clear: Heyward and Moonves tried to tell the Review Committeee to skip their part in a sad parade.

Of course this was noticed right away. (Transparency not being a CBS strong suit, the people there don’t seem to know when they are being transparent.) Ernest Miller at Corante pointed it out: “If this panel is not going to look into the terrible errors that took place after the broadcast, it is clear that CBS News is not truly interested in resolving this matter and holding itself to the highest standards of journalism.”

Jeff Jarvis (I nominated him for the committee, but that suggestion was not taken up) complained too: “CBS is charging them only to look into how the forged docs got onto the air, nothing after, nothing more. Big mistake. Muffed opportunity. Frightened and frightening lack of vision.”

They were right, but spoke a little too soon. The politics of the review situation are starting to work. The Wall Street Journal quotes Boccardi expanding the commitee’s charge, showing that he and Thornburgh are the ones in charge. Miller, a Yale law school fellow as well as a blogger, has the passage:

Mr. Boccardi, who retired from the AP in 2003, said the panel would study not only the process by which the Sept. 8 report anchored by Dan Rather was prepared and broadcast, but also the network’s reaction to questions challenging the piece after it aired. CBS and Mr. Rather initially stood firmly behind the story and the documents and that has generated almost as much criticism as the report itself did. “That is very much part of what we’re going to look at,” Mr. Boccardi said.

That Heyward and Moonves are not happy with the larger investigation is probably what’s behind this bit, also from the WSJ:

A CBS spokeswoman said the primary focus of the panel is the reporting of the story itself, not the aftermath. While there is no timeline for the panel to conclude its investigation, she said the hope is “it moves along at a good pace.”

Dan Rather understands what the presidents are doing. Listen to him widen the net of responsibility, getting on the record early with how involved the higher-ups actually were. (New York Times, Sep. 23)

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Rather said that on learning that Ms. Mapes had obtained the documents, he called Mr. Heyward.
“This is not verbatim,” Mr. Rather recalled. “But I said: ‘Andrew, if true, it’s breakthrough stuff. But I need to do something unusual. It may even be unique. I have to ask you to oversee, in a hands-on way, the handling of this story, because this is potentially the kind of thing that will cause great controversy.’

“He got it. He immediately agreed.”

In other words, the two men knew they were about to make a political decision. I wonder how many at CBS will get it and immediately agree with Roy Peter Clark of Poynter, a man with political imagination, who has a very good idea:

The independent investigators, now identified as Dick Thornburgh and Lou Boccardi, should conduct public hearings on the CBS scandal. These should be televised by CBS.

He’s not kidding— the CBS hearings televised on CBS. Something like this is needed if the network is going to get the public service mantle back quickly. You have to perform a big public service… on yourself. (Jeff Jarvis had a similar idea.) Clark’s vision of it:

Imagine a week of televised hearings in which the investigators would question Dan Rather, producers and reporters from “60 Minutes,” other news executives, and rank and file journalists from CBS. Perhaps other players outside the network could be called to shed some additional light: Political figures, press secretaries, other journalists, even ethicists. Thornburgh, who served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, would ask questions that shed light on our law and politics. Former president of AP Boccardi would help us measure the performance of CBS against enduring and emerging journalistic standards. Along the way, hundreds of other voices would weigh in, from talk radio, cable television, letters to the editor, and blogs.

My own judgment is that something dramatic is called for— like a week of televised hearings, but it could be some other creative idea. Let’s not forget there are CBS affiliates hearing from a lot of angry people. (See this.) There’s a campaign to get Bob Schieffer dumped from the debates. William Safire is asking about criminal charges. And some of the worst ever poll numbers for media trust have just been released.

A spectacular act of public listening might allow CBS to re-claim some initiative here.

Now Political Man—in the person of Dick Thornburgh, a Republican—will sit down with a career News Guy (Boccardi, party unknown) and they will sift through Dan Rather’s fallen tale of the Texas Air National Guard. They will have to reach a common understanding, which might be the most valuble “product” the review has. This is about politics. This is about news. This is about the politics of news, and such things as political ambition “in” journalism, which is not the same as partisan purpose, even though partisan purpose is involved too. And this is also about a raw attempt to discredit CBS, and Dan Rather— a long-held dream among some on the Right.

At stake are some big things: does CBS News have a political future? Will it run again? And can it ever win in this state?

After Matter: Notes, reactions and links…

Big Fallout: ‘60 Minutes’ Delays Report Questioning Reasons for Iraq War (New York Times, Sep. 25):

CBS said last night that the report on the war would not run before Nov. 2. “We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election,” the spokeswoman, Kelli Edwards, said in a statement.

In a way that’s the network’s biggest admission yet: we don’t have the credibility now to run that story.

Wall Street Journal: “It is possible that the choice of Dick Thornburgh sends a signal to Republicans in terms of the desire by CBS to have legitimacy with this review panel,” said Bob Steele, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Fla. However, Mr. Steele noted that Mr. Thornburgh “carries a political pedigree in a story that is so politicized that it seems debatable, and perhaps even unwise, to heighten the politicizing element of what is going on.”

Complications in the liberal media: Sumner Redstone says he is a liberal democrat who supports the Republicans. Why? They’re good for Viacom. Opinion Journal: “Guess Who’s a GOP Booster? The CEO of CBS’s parent company endorses President Bush.” Plus: Redstone quoted in the New York Post: “The investigation is ‘appropriate — and the consequences will be appropriate,’ Redstone told the business magazine Forbes at a conference in Hong Kong.”

New twist on the bias debate: JD Lasica, Google News: Unintentionally skewing to the right? (Online Journalism Review.)

Vaugh Ververs in the National Journal (Sep. 24) says the Bush team has already rejected the idea of dumping CBS’s Bob Schieffer as debate moderator.

Why do you care if CBS goes under? A PressThink reader, Richard Frost, asked me that in the following note:

You seem very concerned that CBS News may be de-legitimized. I must confess, I don’t understand why this possibility should be so distressing to you. The press (and society) have long supported investigations, both legal and governmental, of business for any number of possible abuses; stock manipultations, environmental damage, sexual harassment, pension management, and insider trading come to mind. Proven wrongdoing can result in penalties, both civil and criminal, in which businesses may suffer tremendous loss of credibility or even be put out of business.
Why should CBS, or any media organization, be exempt? We are generally skeptical of proposals by any industry to regulate itself, especially when there has been a history of problems or an important breach of trust. We also think that harsh penalties are effective deterrents to serious wrongdoing by other players. Is there some reason to think that similar logic does not apply to the press? Or, if it does apply, is there some mitigating circumstance or fact that should take precedence?

Dorothy Rabinowitz, commentary in the Wall Street Journal: “… journalists might do better, in short, to wish Mr. Rather and company well in this hard time, and then declare the obvious. Which is that there are some things in human experience that ought to be granted their own uniqueness. On the grounds of its mysteries alone, the CBS-National Guard story deserves to be one of them.”

Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR ombudsman on the blogs and the Rather story: “we must acknowledge that the blogs have truly arrived. It is hard for journalists who have led a sheltered life without public accountability to acknowledge that those days are over.”

Culmination of a 40-year-long indictment? Fascinating history of the conservative movement’s claims against the liberal media, tracing things back to Goldwater in 1964. John Podhoretz in the Weekly Standard: Dan Rather’s Day of Reckoning:

From the bloggers who blew the whistle on the fabrications to the millions of Internet news consumers who could not get enough of every twist and turn in the unbelievable unfolding story, there was a definite sense that history was turning on a dime, that the exposure of CBS’s infamy by non-journalists with a new ability to communicate through the Internet heralded the dawn of the New Information Age.
That’s why, even though the precipitating event was a genuine outrage—CBS News’s breathless use of forged documents accusing George W. Bush of disobeying a direct order from his National Guard superior in an all-too-obvious effort to sway the opinions of voters only 48 days before the 2004 election—the outrage has been accompanied by a spirit of giddiness and exhilaration almost from the moment the onslaught began.

This is a moment that’s been a very long time coming. For four decades now, conservatives have been convinced, with supreme justification, that the institutional, ideological, and cultural biases of the mainstream media represented a danger to the causes in which they believe and the ideas they hold dear. What has happened over the past weeks isn’t the beginning of a transformation. It’s the culmination of a 40-year-long indictment that has, at long last, led to a slam-dunk conviction.

Here’s a good round up of blog reactions to the CBS surrender on Sep. 20 from Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice.

Eric Boehlert in Salon: Too much about memos, too little about war. “As the election nears, will TV news finally get tough and really cover the Iraq war?”

Bruce Benidt in the Star Tribune: “The bad journalism isn’t just not checking out the possibly doctored documents — it’s breathlessly chasing the flashy story to begin with. CBS was hoist on its own petard. 60 Minutes and its spinoffs and imitators have reveled so long in their ‘gotcha’ approach that they’ve crossed from journalism through entertainment and into pandering.”

Scott Rosenberg of Salon, Bloggers and Journalists — Border crossings:

The challenge for professional journalists today is to understand how their role has changed. Their readers and their sources and their subjects now have access to an open microphone. And much of the time, it’s good stuff on that mike — amazing stories and smart people and valuable information. Ignoring all that isn’t just a missed opportunity; it’s bad journalism. Only a hack could believe that ignoring the “amateurs in pajamas” is a smart course.
Bloggers, meanwhile, lose out if they choose to stand off and lob spitballs at the media machine instead of engaging with it in creative ways. They have an unprecedented chance to insert new information and ideas into the clotted and previously inaccessible media bloodstream. Blogging for its own sake is its own reward, to be sure. But blogging to set records straight and change minds and influence the public sphere — that’s too valuable to pass on.

How blogs work.

Let’s say you’re a Talking Points Memo fan. News breaks on Valerie Palme. Oh, I want to hear what Josh Marshall has to say about that. It’s the most basic act in public affairs blogging. A few clicks and there’s Talking Points Memo lighting up the screen, the familar picture of Josh, thinking. Ah, he has a post up about the latest news. This is gonna be good…

And at that point we’re off, reader and writer have connected. The blog is working. A rhythm is established through reaction. With big news, more people react and come hunting for views. The big news on my beat has been Dan Rather. It dawned on Thursday Sep. 9, that there might be a real problem with the memos. Friday night I reacted:

Weekend Notes with Forgery Swrling in the Air. (Sep. 11)

Followed by some Big Think, lending context to the Rather events:

Stark Message for the Legacy Media. (Sep. 14)

The story grew. So did the blog’s explanations:

Rather’s Satisfaction: Mystifying Troubles at CBS. (Sep. 18)

And then… On Sep. 20th news strikes. CBS admits its story has come apart. The cycle starts over with same day reaction:

Did the President of CBS News Have Anyone in Charge of Reading the Internet and Sending Alerts?

Posted by Jay Rosen at September 24, 2004 12:47 PM Print

It had to fight a war for legitimacy and reputation, and that's a political struggle, but since the news division was the one involved in the fight, CBS had to also claim that it had no politics at all.

It seems to me that CBS puts their legitimacy and reputation on the table as ante when deciding to air this story, and that they have done so in the past (more on that later). In other words, they were looking to play the trump card in a political game but got caught either cheating, or forgetting what suit was trump. I think it is important to recognize:

CBS was engaged in a political struggle with this White House before they aired this program,
the political ramifications of this story were part of their decision (which you state later in the essay: "In other words, the two men knew they were about to make a political decision.")
they lost this hand and were thrust into what should have been a predicted (and not entirely unfamiliar) political struggle to defend thier seat at the table, and
they are low on credibility chips.

What makes this especially damaging for CBS is that this is not simply a political battle between a news organization with a consistent record of being adversarial with whomever is the current White House administration. Dan Rather is arguably the least trusted of the broadcast news anchors, CBS News the least watched and perceived as the most biased. So the claim that "it had no politics at all" is also low on credibility.

Thornburgh is not there to balance Boccardi, who is being sold as neutral, but to balance the perception of CBS' political bias. It's a tacit recognition, if not an admission, that their critics and the public (according to polls) hold the "liberal bias" opinion. Thornburgh is there to balance that opinion, buttressed by the Barnes/Burkett/Cleland/Mapes/Lockhart connections.

Which brings me to the inside baseball, the office politics, that I had not thought about until reading your essay: If someone at CBS wanted to have Rather publicly destroy himself, then for that purpose the network made the correct moves. But why would someone want to do that? That's an interesting contrast to your insight into Rather's thinking (Rather's Satisfaction). It's an implication that not only did Rather get "played" by Mapes into thinking the story was "nailed down", but was then perhaps "played" into destroying himself and, in the process, the credibility of CBS News - spreading the conceit like a virus to other shows as you say.

There seems to be a Master Narrative, a framing, or perhaps even a conventional wisdom developing from the meme that this is an isolated event. That CBS hasn't been through other scandals and the same people making the decisions to air this story and then defiantly and arrogantly stand by it haven't weathered criticism and scandal in the past. Did they handle it differently then? Were these decisions and reactions unique for CBS and these personalities, or in character?

And this is also about a raw attempt to discredit CBS, and Dan Rather-- a long-held dream among some on the Right.

Wow. I really wish you had expanded on this point. A raw attempt to discredit CBS - BY WHOM? By the person that created the fraudulent memos and forged the signatures? By someone at CBS in charge of framing the story or deciding to air it?

In other words, CBS is discredited. They discredited themselves when they aired a political hit-piece despite all the questions from experts, by misleading Hodges and others, and despite the doubts expressed by Killian's family and others in interviews. They discredited themselves when their producer unethically asked the Kerry campaign to call Burkett and Lockhart did CBS the favor!! They further discredited themselves by acting like politicians caught in a scandal.

"The Right" could sit back and watch their "long-held dream" come true - or help it along by keeping the pressure on CBS to finally admit the truth - and it would not change the fact that CBS is responsible for discrediting themselves.

Perhaps an even more interesting question is why The Left has risen up to defend CBS and Dan Rather? To attack and discredit the critics of this story? To attempt to distract, to shift blame, to diminish its relevance?

Isn't that part of the political struggle? If CBS has no politics, why has The Left picked up its banner and rallied behind it?

Radio station drops CBS News over Guard flap

Posted by: Tim at September 24, 2004 4:36 PM | Permalink

Jay: I am starting to think that the bigger divide in this country is between those who are capable of doubt, and those who have no doubt.

sbw: But back to your point about unwillingness to doubt. I've have droned on about that most important journalistic characteristic -- humility. It leads one to constantly revise one's fabric of the world, weaving in the wisdom of your critics -- except We Don't Teach It In Schools.

Change and doubt are powerful forces pushing the human psyche out of the muddled middle and toward the ideologically structured extremes. Humility in the press is vitally important, not just in admitting error but in reporting context (such as discussed here and here). The greatest harm being done to the public by the press is the confidence of a Master Narrative based on conventional wisdom. To that end, there may be value to this discussion in Jarvis' The advantage of bias. A comment I left there (no permalink):

Jeff, there may be an additional advantage to "perspective" transparency than just the credibility it brings to judging individual stories (such as an unexpected outlyer in this case, or the "what did you expect" story context).

That is being able to discuss changes in perspectives, refinements and blatant admissions of having been wrong. It makes visible learning, maturing, social evolution, etc., and should - in the process - make it acceptable. Pig-headed partisanship becomes foreign, abnormal, to what mass communication is putting on display.

In other words, the component missing from the press is "I don't know for sure", "This is my interpretation from my perspective", "I could be proven wrong in the future", "Your guess is as good as mine", "Here's a different perspective from mine", "I wasn't expecting this outcome when I began researching it" and "This is contrary to everything I know about my worldview, but seems to be true".

Jay: Here's an article on the theme, with reference to our political situation today-- if you're strong enough.

Right-wing demagogues applying Goering's Law during the cold war seduced their electoral base by exaggerating, while accusing liberals of ignoring, if not abetting, domestic subversion by Soviet agents and their American accomplices. The strategy was so effective that the liberal avatars of the northeastern Democrats who courageously led the country to war against the Nazis over the objections of midwestern Republican isolationists are still seen as unpatriotic inheritors of a culture of appeasement, "weak on national security" as they had once been "soft on communism," while heartland politicos in cowboy hats and boots, having exploited the September 11 catastrophe as Goering recommended, wrap themselves in the flag and issue terrorist alarms of diminishing credibility to an increasingly confused if still largely faithful populace.

I think it will be interesting to look back in 20 years and discuss how the Left in America became impotent, lazy, small-minded cowards while the greatest liberal reformations took place under Republican "neoconservative" administrations. Can anyone seriously argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union is not one of the greatest liberal reforms of our time, and not since the Kennedy/Johnson administration has the American Left been a vocal force for progressive liberal reform for the people living in murderous autocratic and orthodox regimes. Instead, the Left's propaganda assured us that communism was no threat, and that reports of mass murders were the work of right-wing extreme fascists engaged in the paranoid style. Alger Hiss was an American patriot. The Rosenberg's were framed and murdered by the state. And with increasing frequency, the Left repeated the ominous innuendo of influence by Jews and Israel.

Today, there is an historical reformation taking place in the Middle East toward liberal ideals. In Afghanistan. In Pakistan. In Iraq.

Arabs in these regions are working, fighting and dying for a liberal cause and a representative government. Americans are standing shoulder-to-shoulder working, fighting and dying with them. And contrary to the angst being generated and exploited for commercial and political purposes, this revolutionary liberal reform in the Middle East has been amazingly bloodless.

It may not work, but liberals have been betting against democracy and liberal reforms in the world for 30 years now in favor of paralysis through internationalism and a world bureaucracy (see Dafur, Sudan). So it is the neoconservative Reagan administration that is credited for the collapse of Stalinist communism. And it will be the Bush administration that is credited for initiating liberal reform in the Middle East.

Could it be the failure of liberal reform in Vietnam and Southeast Asia that immasculated the American Left and turned them into cynics and defeatists toward their fellow man? If so, why engage in a defeatist's agitprop for the Middle East? Why turn to Goering and chant imperialism, occupation, when so many Arabs, Americans, Britians, Italians, Poles, Spaniards, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, ..., are working for liberal reform and have died for that cause?

Again, from the article:

So it turned to a domestic substitute by demonizing the latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, school-bussing, fetus-killing, tree-hugging, gun-fearing, morally relativist and secularly humanist so-called liberal elitists, whose elders had been "soft on communism" while they themselves coddle criminals, women, and same sexers, eat brie, drink chardonnay, support Darwin, and oppose capital punishment in defiance of the "moral values" of ordinary, god-fearing, flag-waving, assault gun–carrying Americans.

It seems that as a person ages, you get to watch the generational pendulum swings in the culture war. If only for the good ol' days when the Left could successfully "Goering" the Right as: beer-drinking, SUV-driving, home-schooling, misogynistic, planet-killing, gun-loving, bible-thumping and puritanistic so-called fascist overseers, whose elders had been "Nazi collaborators" while they themselves oppress criminals, women, and same sexers, eat meat, drink tap water, oppose Darwin, and secretly wish they could be the ones pulling the capital punishment switch.

In fact, weren't those the days when the Left could convincingly use terms like "Goeringed" and "paranoid style" with teflon credibility? When euphemisms could be used without criticism in an age of tolerance trumps truth?

I guess those days are long over?

Tony Blair on terrorism and modern media

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 12:39 PM | Permalink

The People Formerly Known as the Audience: "You don't own the eyeballs. You don't own the press, which is now divided into pro and amateur zones. You don't control production on the new platform, which isn't one-way. There's a new balance of power between you and us." More...

Migration Point for the Press Tribe: "Like reluctant migrants everywhere, the people in the news tribe have to decide what to take with them. When to leave. Where to land. They have to figure out what is essential to their way of life. They have to ask if what they know is portable." More...

Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over: "Here is one advantage bloggers have in the struggle for reputation-- for the user's trust. They are closer to the transaction where trust gets built up on the Web. There's a big difference between tapping a built-up asset, like the St. Pete Times 'brand,' and creating it from scratch." More...

"Where's the Business Model for News, People?" "It’s remarkable to me how many accomplished producers of those goods the future production of which is in doubt are still at the stage of asking other people, “How are we going to pay our reporters if you guys don’t want to pay for our news?'" More...

National Explainer: A Job for Journalists on the Demand Side of News This American Life's great mortgage crisis explainer, The Giant Pool of Money, suggests that "information" and "explanation" ought to be reversed in our order of thought. Especially as we contemplate new news systems. More...

The Beast Without a Brain: Why Horse Race Journalism Works for Journalists and Fails Us. "Just so you know, 'the media' has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not 'get behind' candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy… or gal. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn’t know what it’s doing.." More...

They're Not in Your Club but They Are in Your League: Firedoglake at the Libby Trial: "I’m just advising Newsroom Joe and Jill: make room for FDL in your own ideas about what’s coming on, news-wise. Don’t let your own formula (blog=opinion) fake you out. A conspiracy of the like minded to find out what happened when the national news media isn’t inclined to tell us might be way more practical than you think." More...

Twilight of the Curmudgeon Class: "We’re at the twilight of the curmudgeon class in newsrooms and J-schools. (Though they can still do a lot of damage.) You know they’re giving up when they no longer bother to inform themselves about what they themselves say is happening." More...

Getting the Politics of the Press Right: Walter Pincus Rips into Newsroom Neutrality "The important thing is to show integrity-- not to be a neuter, politically. And having good facts that hold up is a bigger advantage than claiming to reflect all sides equally well." More...

A Most Useful Definition of Citizen Journalism "It's mine, but it should be yours. Can we take the quote marks off now? Can we remove the 'so-called' from in front? With video!." More...

The Master Narrative in Journalism: "Were 'winning' to somehow be removed or retired as the operating system for news, campaign reporting would immediately become harder to do, not because there would be no news, but rather no common, repeatable instructions for deciding what is a key development in the story, a turning point, a surprise, a trend. Master narratives are thus harder to alter than they are to apprehend. For how do you keep the story running while a switch is made?" More...

He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User "Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who's faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in." More...

Users-Know-More-than-We-Do Journalism: "It's a "put up or shut up" moment for open source methods in public interest reporting. Can we take good ideas like... distributed knowledge, social networks, collaborative editing, the wisdom of crowds, citizen journalism, pro-am reporting... and put them to work to break news?" More...

Introducing NewAssignment.Net: "Enterprise reporting goes pro-am. Assignments are open sourced. They begin online. Reporters working with smart users and blogging editors get the story the pack wouldn't, couldn't or didn't." More...

What I Learned from Assignment Zero "Here are my coordinates for the territory we need to be searching. I got them from doing a distributed trend story with Wired.com and thinking through the results." More...

If Bloggers Had No Ethics Blogging Would Have Failed, But it Didn't. So Let's Get a Clue: "Those in journalism who want to bring ethics to blogging ought to start with why people trust (some) bloggers, not with an ethics template made for a prior platform operating as a closed system in a one-to-many world." More...

The View From Nowhere: "Occupy the reasonable middle between two markers for 'vocal critic,' and critics look ridiculous charging you with bias. Their symmetrical existence feels like proof of an underlying hysteria. Their mutually incompatible charges seem to cancel each other out. The minute evidence they marshall even shows a touch of fanaticism." More...

Rollback: "This White House doesn't settle for managing the news--what used to be called 'feeding the beast'--because there is a larger aim: to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country." More...

Retreat from Empiricism: On Ron Suskind's Scoop: ""Realist, a classic term in foreign policy debates, and reality-based, which is not a classic term but more of an instant classic, are different ideas. We shouldn't fuzz them up. The press is capable of doing that because it never came to terms with what Suskind reported in 2004." More...

Karl Rove and the Religion of the Washington Press: "Savviness--that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, 'with it,' and unsentimental in all things political--is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. And it was this cult that Karl Rove understood and exploited for political gain." More...

Journalism Is Itself a Religion: "We're headed, I think, for schism, tumult and divide as the religion of the American press meets the upheavals in global politics and public media that are well underway. Changing around us are the terms on which authority can be established by journalists. The Net is opening things up, shifting the power to publish around. Consumers are becoming producers, readers can be writers." More...

News Turns from a Lecture to a Conversation: "Some of the pressure the blogs are putting on journalists shows up, then, in the demand for "news as conversation," more of a back-and-forth, less of a pronouncement. This is an idea with long roots in academic journalism that suddenly (as in this year) jumped the track to become part of the news industry's internal dialogue." More...

Two Washington Posts May Be Better Than One: "They're not equals, but Washington and Arlington have their own spheres. Over the newspaper and reporting beats Len Downie is king. Over the website Jim Brady is sovereign. Over the userï¿½s experience no one has total control. There's tension because there's supposed to be tension." More...

Laying the Newspaper Gently Down to Die: "An industry that won't move until it is certain of days as good as its golden past is effectively dead, from a strategic point of view. Besides, there is an alternative if you don't have the faith or will or courage needed to accept reality and deal. The alternative is to drive the property to a profitable demise." More...

Grokking Woodward: "Woodward and Bernstein of 1972-74 didn't have such access, and this probably influenced--for the better--their view of what Nixon and his men were capable of. Watergate wasn't broken by reporters who had entree to the inner corridors of power. It was two guys on the Metro Desk." More...

Maybe Media Bias Has Become a Dumb Debate: "This here is a post for practically everyone in the game of seizing on media bias and denouncing it, which is part of our popular culture, and of course a loud part of our politics. And this is especially for the 'we're fair and balanced, you're not' crowd, wherever I may have located you." More...

Bill O'Reilly and the Paranoid Style in News: "O'Reilly feeds off his own resentments--the establishment sneering at Inside Edition--and like Howard Beale, the 'mad prophet of the airwaves,' his resentments are enlarged by the medium into public grievances among a mass of Americans unfairly denied voice." More...

Thoughts on the Killing of a Young Correspondent: "Among foreign correspondents, there is a phrase: 'parachuting in.' That's when a reporter drops into foreign territory during an emergency, without much preparation, staying only as long as the story remains big. The high profile people who might parachute in are called Bigfoots in the jargon of network news. The problem with being a Bigfoot, of course, is that it's hard to walk in other people's shoes." More...

The News From Iraq is Not Too Negative. But it is Too Narrow: "The bias charges are getting more serious lately as the stakes rise in Iraq and the election. But there is something lacking in press coverage, and it may be time for wise journalists to assess it. The re-building story has gone missing. And without it, how can we judge the job Bush is doing?." More...

The Abyss of Observation Alone. "There are hidden moral hazards in the ethic of neutral observation and the belief in a professional 'role' that transcends other loyalties. I think there is an abyss to observation alone. And I feel it has something to do with why more people don't trust journalists. They don't trust that abyss." More...

"Find Some New Information and Put it Into Your Post." Standards for Pro-Am Journalism at OffTheBus: "Opinion based on information 'everyone' has is less valuable than opinion journalism based on information that you dug up, originated, or pieced together. So it’s not important to us that contributors keep opinion out. What’s important is that they put new information in. More...

Out in the Great Wide Open: Maybe you heard about the implosion of Wide Open, a political blog started by the Cleveland Plain Dealer with four "outside" voices brought in from the ranks of Ohio bloggers: two left, two right. Twelve points you may not have seen elsewhere." More...

Some Bloggers Meet the Bosses From Big Media: "What capacity for product development do news organizations show? Zip. How are they on nurturing innovation? Terrible. Is there an entreprenurial spirit in newsrooms? No. Do smart young people ever come in and overturn everything? Never." More...

Notes and Comment on BlogHer 2005 "I think the happiest conference goers at BlogHer were probably the newbies, people who want to start blogging or just did. They got a lot of good information and advice. Some of the best information was actually dispensed in response to the fears provoked by blogging, which shouldnï¿½t be avoided, the sages said, but examined, turned around, defused, and creatively shrunk.." More...

Top Ten List: What's Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism? "The weblog comes out of the gift economy, whereas most of today's journalism comes out of the market economy." More...

A Second Top Ten List: What's Conservative About the Weblog Form in Journalism? "The quality of any weblog in journalism depends greatly on its fidelity to age old newsroom commandments like check facts, check links, spell things correctly, be accurate, be timely, quote fairly." More...

Blogging is About Making and Changing Minds: "Sure, weblogs are good for making statements, big and small. But they also force re-statement. Yes, they're opinion forming. But they are equally good at unforming opinion, breaking it down, stretching it out." More...

The Weblog: An Extremely Democratic Form in Journalism "It's pirate radio, legalized; it's public access coming closer to life. Inside the borders of Blogistan (a real place with all the problems of a real place) we're closer to a vision of 'producer democracy' than we are to any of the consumerist views that long ago took hold in the mass media, including much of the journalism presented on that platform." More...

No One Owns Journalism: "And Big Media doesn't entirely own the press, because if it did then the First Amendment, which mentions the press, would belong to Big Media. And it doesn't. These things were always true. The weblog doesn't change them. It just opens up an outlet to the sea. Which in turn extends 'the press' to the desk in the bedroom of the suburban mom, where she blogs at night." More...

Brain Food for BloggerCon: Journalism and Weblogging in Their Corrected Fullness "Blogging is one universe. Its standard unit is the post, its strengths are the link and the low costs of entry, which means lots of voices. Jounalism is another universe. Its standard unit is "the story." Its strengths are in reporting, verification and access-- as in getting your calls returned." More...

Dispatches From the Un-Journalists: "Journalists think good information leads to opinion and argument. It's a logical sequence. Bloggers think that good argument and strong opinion cause people to seek information, an equally logical sequence. What do the bloggers bring to this? My short answer to the press is: everything you have removed."More...

Political Jihad and the American Blog: Chris Satullo Raises the Stakes "Journalists, you can stop worrying about bloggers 'replacing' the traditional news media. We're grist for their mill, says Satullo, a mill that doesn't run without us. Bloggers consume and extend the shelf life of our reporting, and they scrutinize it at a new level of intensity.."More...

Raze Spin Alley, That Strange Creation of the Press: "Spin Alley, an invention of the American press and politicos, shows that the system we have is in certain ways a partnership between the press and insiders in politics. They come together to mount the ritual. An intelligent nation is entitled to ask if the partners are engaged in public service when they bring to life their invention... Alternative thesis: they are in a pact of mutual convenience that serves no intelligible public good." More...

Horse Race Now! Horse Race Tomorrow! Horse Race Forever!: "How is it you know you're the press? Because you have a pass that says PRESS, and people open the gate. The locker room doors admit you. The story must be inside that gate; that's why they give us credentials. We get closer. We tell the fans what's going on. And if this was your logic, Bill James tried to bust it. Fellahs, said he to the baseball press, you have to realize that you are the gate." More...

Psst.... The Press is a Player: "The answer, I think, involves an open secret in political journalism that has been recognized for at least 20 years. But it is never dealt with, probably because the costs of facing it head on seem larger than the light tax on honesty any open secret demands. The secret is this: pssst... the press is a player in the campaign. And even though it knows this, as everyone knows it, the professional code of the journalist contains no instructions in what the press could or should be playing for?" More...

Die, Strategy News: "I think it's a bankrupt form. It serves no clear purpose, has no sensible rationale. The journalists who offer us strategy news do not know what public service they are providing, why they are providing it, for whom it is intended, or how we are supposed to use this strange variety of news."More...

He Said, She Said, We Said: "When journalists avoid drawing open conclusions, they are more vulnerable to charges of covert bias, of having a concealed agenda, of not being up front about their perspective, of unfairly building a case (for, against) while pretending only to report 'what happened.'" More...

If Religion Writers Rode the Campaign Bus: "Maybe irony, backstage peaking and "de-mystify the process" only get you so far, and past that point they explain nothing. Puzzling through the convention story, because I'm heading right into it myself, made me to realize that journalism's contempt for ritual was deeply involved here. Ritual is newsless; therefore it must be meaningless. But is that really true?."More...

Convention Coverage is a Failed Regime and Bloggers Have Their Credentials: "No one knows what a political convention actually is, anymore, or why it takes 15,000 people to report on it. Two successive regimes for making sense of the event have collapsed; a third has not emerged. That's a good starting point for the webloggers credentialed in Boston. No investment in the old regime and its ironizing." More...

Philip Gourevitch: Campaign Reporting as Foreign Beat: "'A presidential election is a like a gigantic moving television show,' he said. It is the extreme opposite of an overlooked event. The show takes place inside a bubble, which is a security perimeter overseen by the Secret Service. If you go outside the bubble for any reason, you become a security risk until you are screened again by hand."More...

What Time is it in Political Journalism? "Adam Gopnik argued ten years ago that the press did not know who it was within politics, or what it stood for. There was a vacuum in journalism where political argument and imagination should be. Now there are signs that this absence of thought is ending." More...

Off the Grid Journalism: “The assignment was straightforward enough,” writes Marjie Lundstrom of the Sacramento Bee, “talk to people.” When a writer dissents from it or departs from it, the master narrative is a very real thing. Here are two examples: one from politics, one from music. More...

Questions and Answers About PressThink "The Web is good for many opposite things. For quick hitting information. For clicking across a field. For talk and interaction. It's also a depth finder, a memory device, a library, an editor. Not to use a weblog for extended analysis (because most users won't pick that option) is Web dumb but media smart. What's strange is that I try to write short, snappy things, but they turn into long ones." More...

In my opinion, it is far more important to examine what went wrong *before* the broadcast than how the network handled it *afterwards.* The one-sided nature of that story, and the seemingly willful insistence on ignoring any contrary point of view, calls into question all of the stories produced by Rather and the rest of his crew.

Posted by: Patterico at September 24, 2004 1:43 PM | Permalink

I find myself in agreement with Patterico, from a different perspective.

To me, there's no question to be explained in the CBS reaction. It's a classic case of being in denial. Moreover, their thinking there isn't obscure or hard to comprehend.

They can't come out and say it, but they were obviously of the mindset "This is a bunch of wingnuts and Republican PR flacks throwing mud at us and hoping something will stick"

Once they formed the belief in the truth of the story, they acted with complete consistency according to the impertatives that belief. So what would be the point of going through restating that at length?

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 24, 2004 3:12 PM | Permalink

This is a complete aste of time, energy and resources. Thousands of people have been mercilessly slaughtered in a war based on lies. CBS' ineptitude and Dan Rather's ego are of no interest to anyone seriously interested in journalism or truth.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 24, 2004 4:28 PM | Permalink

Isn't this Sinclair radio operation, which is dumping CBS News allegedly because of listener outrage, the same group that wouldn't put on Ted Koppell the night he was reading the war dead?

Posted by: Quebecoise at September 24, 2004 4:47 PM | Permalink

I have to chime in on what Mr. Ehrenstein said.

None of us should pretend that this episode is in any way unique. Sure, the way it blew up was pretty special, especially if you're a Repblican wingnut; but that doesn't change the fact this kind of flubbing-the-facts is perfectly normal in mainstream corporate journalism today.

Starting a couple years ago, the press, including the unfortunate Mr. Rather, did, with great enthusiasm, take a leading role in selling the nation a war we all know (and many of us knew) was based on lies, obfuscation and perfidy. Thus far, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead along with the nearly 1,100 American soldiers.

In that case, the result was mass murder. So, where is the great investigation paneled with faux-macho Republican activists pretending to give a hoot about the truth?

Does anyone here really doubt that a truly professional press corps, doing it's job the way we learned in school, would have prevented this horrible crime? If the truth mattered in the least, even to Mr. Rather, this war probably would not have happened.

In this latest case, the result is a comic soap opera Alfred Jarry would greatly admire. Pa Ubu lives!

Who was damaged by all this? Dan Rather. If anyone should be outraged, it would be him. Did anyone die as a result of this "terrible crime?"

CBS will, as most monolithic corporations do, weather this little dust-up, but Rather may not.

The Republicans can lather themselves up in faux outrage as much as they like. It changes nothing.

This whole episode is one of the saddest commentaries on our national press corpse I've ever witnessed. Not because someone goofed, got taken to the cleaners and made a huge series of mistakes. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Nay, it's all this pretense that somehow the truth matters when it clearly doesn't. Not to CBS, or any other major corporate outlet. Not anymore, and not in many years now.

So while people are dying in a war that was foisted upon us by a lying, meretricious press, we act like this latest scandal is somehow more significant than all those corpses rotting in a roiling desert.

In a sense, I tend to see all this ridiculous navel gazing as proof of just how corrupt the business is. So, I think, do a lot of other people. This is all about managing perceptions and damage control.

Mr. Rosen, for as much as I admire your work, there seems to be a vast ocean seperating journalism as an academic discipline and "journalism" as a corporate business model. It rather seems to me that in order to WORK in journalism today, the first thing that has to go is all that "book learnin'" about truth and integrity. At least that is the case in a good many outlets that wield real power. I would love to be wrong on this point, by the way.

TV news audiences have been shrinking for years, save a smartly produced war or hurricane on occasion, and hardly anyone seems to think that just maybe it's because Americans are sufficiently media savvy to know they are being BS'd.

In the end, all this is just about distracting people from real life and death issues. It's a clown show that won't save anyone's life or prevent us being spoonfed the next strategic disaster in the Middle East as "liberation."

Thanks for indulging my Howard Beale moment....

Posted by: Rick at September 24, 2004 7:17 PM | Permalink

Patterico: I think it is equally--not "more," but equally--important to examine what went on before the story aired. But that was included in the charge to the Committee and everyone is expecting that kind of inquiry.

Seth: Assume a sufficient level of cynicism in or about others, and any series of events, no matter how fantastic, can be shrugged off with a "what did you expect?"

Being "in denial" may describe the CBS crew, but it doesn't explain anything. Why were they in such denial?

"This is a bunch of wingnuts and Republican hacks, we can afford to ignore it" may account for the first 24 hours. But we have 12 days to account for. Within 24 hours the people that CBS people do care about, and pay attention to--other journalists from national news organizations--were having their doubts.

I refer you again to Mike Dobbs of the Washington Post: "I had serious suspicions about the authenticity of the documents on the morning after they were aired. I find it difficult to believe that people in CBS did not develop similar doubts soon afterward."

I agree with Dobbs. It stretches credulity to believe that there weren't people inside CBS, including people in executive positions, who saw what Dobbs saw. You must realize: journalists think alike. As soon as the first expert relied upon by CBS came out and said, "well, I can't testify to that, no..." the story was in crisis-- and anyone with journalism experience who was paying attention knew that.

Some were in denial, yes, and emotionally committed to the story. But why were they in charge of CBS's response to the story? Some saw what was happening. Why were they silent or disempowered?

I have been interviewed by a lot of reporters the last two weeks-- at least 20 times. Each time I try to gauge their level of shock, and they have a hard time believing what happened. In itself that proves nothing. But I think it's an indication that there's something off here.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 24, 2004 11:26 PM | Permalink

Tim: I consider it highly possible that the target of the fraud was CBS, and the purpose was to discredit CBS News. Likely? I wouldn't say that. Just very possible. Nor is there anything resembling proof.

The most tantalizing piece of evidence, to me, is Buckhead's membership in the Federalist Society. Doesn't prove anything, could be just a coincidence. Any competent investigative reporter would be interested in that little detail, however.

I grant that it's amusing to hear people on the Left describe the memos as Rove's work for sure. But it would be naive to say we know the memos were forged to help Kerry.

This leads to an interesting question in this whole mess. Was this a successful plot? Or unsuccessful? Remember all those bloggers who were saying in the first few days, "the memos are not only fakes, but obvious fakes." Let's say they were right. Where does that lead?

But the main reason I wrote... And this is also about a raw attempt to discredit CBS, and Dan Rather-- a long-held dream among some on the Right was simply to note that those who have long had it in for Rather and CBS and the liberal media sense a chance to go for the kill--to fully discredit their targets--and they are trying to apply political pressure to make that happen.

The fact that CBS discredited itself with its original report and response does not change any of that. I say some on the Right are excited by the "gift horse" they have been given. They intend to milk this for every discrediting point that can be won. That's how politics is played. You can't seriously object to me mentioning it, when I have written 10,000 words in five posts about how CBS discredited itself.

I agree with you that the Left does not know what it's doing, saying, conceding when it decides to "support" CBS. It is simply reacting--unthinkingly--to what I said above. "Our opponents are attacking CBS; if we rally to CBS's defense then we are fighting our enemies and that's what we want, right?"

For people who are unable to think politically, such reactions are routine.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 24, 2004 11:51 PM | Permalink

Using your live link, I read Dorothy Rabinowitz's analysis of the Danpoo. Altho she had much of interest for us to read, she refused to face and ask the question of the ideologue's motive, and therefore to inquire after just what the punishment should be. She lost her nerve, and is another casualty of the valuelessness of the Big Press to whom all this a game. If she can't get to the point, she shouldn't be writing. Rather must be punished because of all the people he hurt, in order to follow thru on educating him as to his unacceptable motivation. To the extent that he and his producer Mapes shared a common motivation, we are dealing with a conspiracy against the electoral process of the United States, which means the punishment should rise exponentially. But also, he violated a lot of individuals–like the Killian family–on a very personal basis; should they choose, the courts should grant huge awards both as to the analogous relation to a rape, and to drawing them into a public demaining of public figures symbolic of their most civic values. Then there are the members of the public at large who were victims of the Rather/Mapes/CBS travesty of "informing the people" by means of a calculated program of disinformation. As to those between Rather and the corporate entities, CBS/Viacom, additional heads should fall, right up the ladder, to the ground. CBS/Viacom should be fined $1 billion dollars for the infamy it let loose on the nation. The blah-blah profession has to be taught its responsiblities in a democracy, and the courts and corporations should rise to the occasion. We need an inner reformation of American journalism.

Yours, Owlbird

Posted by: Owlbird at September 25, 2004 12:19 AM | Permalink

Please don't say "the Right." The right is a European term that implies fascism, anti-democracy-ism, one-party-state-ism, anti-free market-ism. Republicans are conservatives: They oppose (in theory) the growth of government. The "right" likes a strong domineering government; conservatives want back the days of a *weak* Federal government: one with a small bureaucracy and low taxes. The precise opposite of "the right."

Now on to my comments...

Can I just say out loud what Jay is saying between the lines? Perhaps Jay's way of saying it is more subtle and more pregnant with meaning but obviously, in Thornburgh and Boccardi you have a Republican and a MSM news guy, which is to say that you have a conservative (not a member of "the right"!) and a liberal. I think instinctively everyone knows that a Republican-MSM guy ticket is a balanced one. PS. I give some odds Thornburgh *volunteered.*

Next, let me say this: If you want to understand what is going on with CBS just read Poynter's Romenesko. He represents the establishment liberal mindset of the news biz almost too perfectly. First he ignored the forgery story, then he posted MSM articles somewhat hostile to it and moved into MSM articles sympathetic to Dan, basically "a good guy who made a mistake in trying to get the story." Mixed in there, you have just enough of the facts to know what happened. Missing: any links to any blogs whatsoever (except, once, to pressthink). Any sense of when big media was getting it wrong (misreporting facts), any sense of critique, any sense of hard analysis. It was ignore, duck and cover as much as a media column can be that also admits something is happening.

Anyway, read it and in the collections of articles that he picked and in the way he chose to play them: you more or less have a transcript of the MSM brain and why this happened the way it did.

Posted by: Lee Kane at September 25, 2004 1:18 AM | Permalink

Jay: This leads to an interesting question in this whole mess. Was this a successful plot? Or unsuccessful? Remember all those bloggers who were saying in the first few days, "the memos are not only fakes, but obvious fakes." Let's say they were right. Where does that lead?

France? Italy's SISMI? OK, kidding.

Right now it leads to Burkett. Either Burkett is the originator of the documents or the conduit for the documents. Either Burkett chose the media outlet - or in your terminology, the target - or was instructed to give the documents to CBS (specifically Mapes?). Does that fit the storyline as we know it so far? Applying Occam's Razor, does it seem more likely that this was an amateurish attempt to hurt Bush?

You can't seriously object to me mentioning it, when I have written 10,000 words in five posts about how CBS discredited itself.

I don't object. In all the rhetoric and emotion from both sides, I found the names being used to refer to this scandal interesting. Sure, there were the -gate terms ... Rathergate, Memogate ... but the most interesting one to me was Danron. Who would argue that Enron didn't deserve every discrediting point their critics won? Are Danron and Enron on the same scale? No. Was there journalistic malfeasance here? Yes. Was there criminal conduct in creating fraudulent government documents and forging Killian's signature? Don't know.

So how many discrediting points have Dan Rather and CBS News earned? Are there still earned discrediting points that have not been won? Is it the function of Republicans/conservatives to make sure all of them are "won" and Democrats/liberals to make sure no unearned discrediting points are collected?

Is there a need for a thoughtful, respected, media critic to interrupt that kind of automatic thinking?

After 12 days, we finally have an admission by CBS that the documents' authenticity can not be proved. We have an apology from Rather for not being as good as he should have been on this story. We have a two person panel appointed by CBS with unclear instructions and little understanding of how they will conduct themselves. We have a possible lawsuit against CBS by Burkett. I suppose there could be other lawsuits brought in the near future.

There are still many questions about the origin and provenance of the documents. There are still many questions about Burkett's role. There are still many questions about the web of connections. About motivations.

I strongly believe that the best way for CBS to stop giving away discrediting points is to become the most aggressive in uncovering and exposing the answers.

But CBS, and their defenders, seem less interested in burning everyone involved in this "raw attempt to discredit CBS" (I remain skeptical that CBS was the target) and more interested in a PR attempt to build sympathy (those mean right-wingnuts have always had it in for us) and play down the importance of the story (certainly opposite from their position when they rushed the story to broadcast).

By doing so, they are earning more discrediting points that need to be won until CBS News is no more. And that has always been within CBS' control.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 2:07 AM | Permalink

Well I for one am still hoping that Dan Rather can break this story wide open.

I am troubled by the suggestion that the aftermath of Danron is not suitable for investigation because I strongly suspect that Mapes will be used as a scapegoat. The things that CBS News said and did after the forgeries were exposed are in themselves damning.

This was not a case of CBS just being stubborn or in denial--CBS knowingly misrepresented the credibility of the documents, the experts and sources it used, and the nature of the criticism directed at it after the fact. That's not denial of reality because you're convinced you are right, that's the pattern of denial of a guilty party. Many people, when found out doing something they shouldn't have, fall into this pattern of promiscuous lying. It suggests Enron-like corruption in the upper echelons of CBS News.

Thornburgh's selection is also interesting in that he's had his own clash with CBS News. He's certainly a very interesting choice, but to what end we don't know yet.

As for whether this was all a plot to discredit CBS News, that story sounds a little too good. It presupposes that CBS News was incapable of controlling how it handled the documents once copies came into their possession. What if CBS News had not made copies available? What if they referred to them but only showed a brief, shadowed image during the report? What if they had listened to their own experts?

If you carefully review Burkett's own statements, he's the most likely source of the documents. He claims he burned the "original" copies given to him. He tells a very weird story about how they came into his possession. He claims he was called by some "Lucy" but can't produce a shred of evidence that any such person ever contacted him (not even phone records). He initially named someone else, the aptly named George Conn, as the source. Again, note the pattern of highly dubious statements from someone who is acting like a very guilty party (and who is now trying to use health problems to garner sympathy).

Posted by: Brian at September 25, 2004 3:42 AM | Permalink

"And this is also about a raw attempt to discredit CBS, and Dan Rather-- a long-held dream among some on the Right."

That is a clear statement of fact on your part, Mr. Rosen. So your protest in follow up comments that you are not saying it is even likely, merely "very possible" is simply, if rudely put, a lie. Yes, you have a right to blame it all on conspirators, even the vast right wing variety (as you infer). In fact, you needn't preface your determination of true responsibility with even one word, let alone 10,000, in a rather well stated recitation of CBS' and Dan Rather's errors and sins. Free speech still prevails, off campus. Ultimately, you place the blame squarely on the victim(s) despite the obvious motivations and political action history of Burkett, the man who delivered the documents to CBS. At the same time, you point with suspicion to the shocking fact that the Free Republic poster was a Republican activist as a starting point for your colleagues to blame the Right. Your curiosities seem to depend, not on evidence (circumstantial or not), but on where you wish or fear inquisitiveness to lead.

Whatever CBS does will not solve the credibility problems of the MSM while even now leaders in journalism are trying to shift the blame from their methods and prejudices to outside conspiracies.

Posted by: mikem at September 25, 2004 5:55 AM | Permalink

Jay, there's of course a logical problem with "denial", but it's an explanation. I've been reading "wingnut" blogs over the past two weeks, and it seems all the time they have some lie, some mud, some smear to throw. It's a numbing chorus: "wolf. Wolf. Wolf! WOLF!! *W*O*L*F*!!! **WW**OO**LL**FF**!!!! ..."

I'm not at all perplexed at how the aftermath developed. If some of these people said the sun rises in the east, I'd wonder if the Earth had flipped over.

Look at the remark on Sep. 15, "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story.". This is exactly the sort of personal statement that stems from deep, deep, denial. All the contrary evidence is ignored.

Sure, some people at CBS would have developed doubts. They had doubts at the start. But who wants to tell the Emperor he has no clothes?

In fact, I'd say that's the way to think about this. In the "Emperor's New Clothes", the interesting process is how the Emperor is led to walk around naked. Once he does that, it's not hard to believe that nobody want to tell him to his face that he's naked, and even so, he doesn't want to listen ("If the clothes are not what we were led to believe ...").

Here's Dan Rather "bigfoot", vouching for the story. Why would anybody below him stick their neck out? The rest was the classic unfolding of error:

1) "We stand by our story" (and it's all smoke from our enemies)
2) He said/She said, dueling experts, moral equivalence, nobody knows
3) Let's move on to important issues
4) Oops ...

But critically, going through it won't tell us anything we need to know (except perhaps as an exercise in how power can cloud people's minds as to truth).

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 25, 2004 8:55 AM | Permalink

Mark me down as a bookmark, your worship. A trove of insight and wit worthy of a king's treasure.

Remember the Vietnam thing? "We had to burn the village to save it"? At CBS it's: "We had to burn the truth (and reveal our impeachable source, who duped us with lies) to save the truth."

Posted by: dogberry at September 25, 2004 10:44 AM | Permalink

mikem: There's been a campaign to discredit Rather and CBS for a long time. Now it's kicked into overtime because its chance has come: thus, "let's get Bob Scheiffer dumped from the debates, even though he had nothing to do with it."

There is such a campaign. That is what I said. That is what I meant. It happens to be true. If you don't care for me mentioning it, tough. What I called "unlikely, but quite possible" is my own speculation that the memos were forged to hurt CBS.

Now what was it I lied about, mike? You lost me on that one.

Owl: I admire your ability to know Rather's motivations with the same certainty that we know when the sun will set tonight. That's one skill I haven't developed yet, and I doubt I ever will.

Lee: I agree that Romenesko has a mainstream news mind-- that's his audience. He was slow on this story, and seemed reluctant to grant it much importance at first. However, it is not true that when he got into the swing he ignored the most critical accounts emerging from the national press. He did ignore almost all the bloggers, though. You're right about that.

Tim: As is usual, I have had my go 'rounds with the Left and the Right on this one. I may write something on the Left and the Rather memos, since there is a lot of confusion in the responses of liberals and progressives. Just curious if you agree that the campaign to dump Schieffer is fair and just.

Brian: I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

Seth: The "bigfoot" factor is a big one. But that is why my post focused on Heyward and Moonves. They are bigfoot's boss. They have responsibility. If the question is, "but who's gonna tell Dan Rather that he's in denial...?" the answer is: they are!

I agree that Rather's "I'd like to break that story" is deeply revealing of how out-of-it he was. It's already famous, that line, and for good reason.

Finally, Seth, one thing we're going to learn is just how prejudiced against and ignorant of the Internet people at CBS were. Way, way beyond the fact that they weren't reading Powerline. I'm talking about people who run media companies or news divisions and don't know what Romenesko is, haven't looked at their own site (CBS News.com) in months, maybe don't even understand the difference between the Net and the Web, who are living and thinking in a circa-1998 world.

Seems to me that's worth knowing. But again, if you adopt enough cynicism, it's... "what did you expect?"

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 25, 2004 11:34 AM | Permalink

Jay: Just curious if you agree that the campaign to dump Schieffer is fair and just.

Nope, not fair or just. Very political. It seemed there were all kinds of motivations for it as well. Get other CBS headliners on the record about what Rather/CBS News was doing (other "big foots" - or is that feet? - at CBS were dragged into the debate)? Leverage CBS' participation in the debates to get them to back down? To drop a debate (2 instead of 3)? I admit that I'm really not sure what the real goals were of the folks bringing up Schieffer and the debates or if they think it was a success or not.

Some interesting structural bias clues, as well as political decision-making in the NYT article David links:

Ms. Edwards said that the report had been scheduled for June but that it was postponed because of additional news on the subject.

That may tie in to the work Josh Marshall was doing and is discussed in more detail here.

The Iraq segment had been ready for broadcast on Sept. 8, CBS said, but was bumped at the last minute for the segment on Mr. Bush's National Guard service. The Guard segment was considered a highly competitive report, one that other journalists were pursuing.

I find the political decision-making in three places:

Let's not worsen our situation by criticizing someone for falling for fake documents right away.
Let's not do it to the Bush administration before the election.
Note how the Niger doocuments are not a more important story, or more competitive story, at CBS.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 12:09 PM | Permalink

It is a very political decision, and, from the point of view of a free press, also very disturbing. "Would not be appropriate," says spokesman. Yes, but why?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 25, 2004 12:15 PM | Permalink

Jay: Not that Romenesko didn't link to the critical MSM stories but that he initially downplayed them (not giving them prominence) or putting links to stories very critical of CBS in "more link" sections and leading with stories that treated the story more as a "respectable institution said--weird bloggers said" story. Eventually, when the story became very very big, he moved it to the top and gave it a lot of attention--exactly how CBS itself treated the story. I am just saying Romenesko's treatment of the story probably shows how an MSM news person saw the story as it developed. And provides insight into why CBS acted the way it did.

On Nigeria docs: Perhaps CBS has taken a second look at the story and realizes that it also appears to be on the hyped and doubtful side. Bush never claimed that the US directly believed in the Nigeria connection. He claimed that Great Britain believed in the connection, and GB is standing by its story. I wonder if they didn't think, "We need to go back over this story and make sure it is 100% accurate and fair." And then decided it wasn't.

I really doubt that's what happened. But I don't wonder if it should.

Posted by: Lee Kane at September 25, 2004 12:28 PM | Permalink

As someone who reads and participates in the liberal blogosphere, I would contend that the reason Rather has received a modicum of "support" from the liberal bloggers (although much less than suggested by the people commenting here!), is because anyone who follows the Bush/AWOL story (like David Ehrenstein) KNOWS that there is much to the assertion that Bush WAS AWOL (or a deserter)! No information, absolutely none, that has come to light has suggested anything otherwise. Any reading of Marty Heldt or Paul Lukasiak's work is enough to convince any logical, intellectually honest person of this.

None of this translates into defending what is considered a journalistic sin, but I'd like to see some consistency of journalistic sins by the likes of Jeff Gerth, Chris Vlasto, the spite girls against Gore (TSGAG)etc.

Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2004 12:33 PM | Permalink

Jay says:

"It is a very political decision, and, from the point of view of a free press, also very disturbing. "Would not be appropriate," says spokesman. Yes, but why?"

An uncharitable reading of the CBS imbroglio is that a lot of people at the network hate Republicans and have given up "journalism" in favor of operating the news division of the network as a de facto organ of the Kerry campaign. One does not have to be unusually paranoid to entertain some form of this hypothesis (though I, for one, never assume malice where simple incompetence suffices as an explanation).

If there appears to be a good chance this hypothesis is true, why would anyone expect the Bush campaign to tolerate having a CBS apparatchik "moderate" a presidential debate? And if the hypothesis is true, who is the greater threat to a free press -- the Bush campaign or CBS itself?

Posted by: Harry at September 25, 2004 12:46 PM | Permalink

"anyone who follows the Bush/AWOL story (like David Ehrenstein) KNOWS that there is much to the assertion that Bush WAS AWOL (or a deserter)!"

Actually, it is pretty clear that most of these people don't even "know" what the legal definititions of AWOL or deserter are.

Bush may very well have gotten favorable treatment at times because of his father. The sons of well known politicians frequently receive favorable treatment, even if no member of the politician's family actually asks for it.

Bush probably did slack off towards the end of his National Guard service, though it is less clear that his treatment was all that unusual. Many people were allowed to leave the Guard early, and many guardmen were allowed several month long breaks to pursure other activities. Kerry himself was discharged from the Navy early so he could run for public office.

But Bush was clearly not "AWOL" or a "deserter" in any valid legalistic way, no matter how often some people wish otherwise. These repeated claims just reveal a profound ignorance about how the military works in those making the claim.

Posted by: JB at September 25, 2004 12:51 PM | Permalink

Jay:
"The most tantalizing piece of evidence, to me, is Buckhead's membership in the Federalist Society. Doesn't prove anything, could be just a coincidence. Any competent investigative reporter would be interested in that little detail, however."

In the presence of POSITIVE evidence that it's a Democratic set-up (Burkett conversations with Cleland, Burkett conversations with Lockhart, Mapes conversations with Lockhart, Fortunate Son campaign timing) isn't it disingenuous (or paranoid) to look for evidence of Republican involvement? Who is the Left trying to fool now that Oz's curtain is down? It's too late to blame the Republicans. Any intelligent person who once used a typewriter could recognize the MS Word documents as forgeries. Buckhead was merely the first. Why don't we also investigate the party affiliation of debunkers 2 through 10,000?

Also, on the question of investigative emphasis, before or after, clearly they are two separate issues: the first should focus on the editorial process of the news program; the second should focus on the policy/agenda of the corporation.

Posted by: mk at September 25, 2004 1:16 PM | Permalink

To JB.

You may know more about the legalisms of AWOL vs desertion than I do, but you clearly don't understand the evidence behind the Bush AWOL story.

Perhaps if reading Heldt's or Lukasiak's site provides too much information to ignore, you'd rather consider the word of an Army general, Lechliter, who I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding his website.

Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2004 1:26 PM | Permalink

The trouble I have with this discussion is that it is impossible to intellectually, although maybe not journalistically, to separate the proported errors of CBS/60 Minutes/Dan Rather/Mapes, in the absence of the entire story itself. So what we get are journalists performing judge, jury and executioners (Dick Thornburgh? please), who don't know the questions surrounding Bush's service WAY beyond Barnes's favorable actions, and on the otherhand, we have people focusing on the Rather (memogate) portion of the story because they either don't know the AWOL story, or worse, they do know it and intentionally muddy the water in an age where that has never been easier.

Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2004 1:33 PM | Permalink

Jay: It is a very political decision, and, from the point of view of a free press, also very disturbing. "Would not be appropriate," says spokesman. Yes, but why?

I'm not sure if that refers to Schieffer or the CBS story postponement.

On Schieffer, I think we should not be naïve about his role in the debates, or disturbed about a "free press" in questions about dropping him. The debates are political theater, scripted in a way not too dissimilar from a nominating convention. In fact, one might think of the presidential debates as joint conventions.

So, rather than be troubled by efforts to remove Schieffer, maybe we should be troubled by the co-opting of "free press" celebrities as hosts, or emcees, of these tightly controlled political events? Besides, "free press" never meant free from commercial, political or social pressures - or an unaccountable press. It just meant no congressional legislation inteferring with it.

On the decision by CBS to bump their fake documents story for the National Guard story, and now postpone it until after the election, I put that in the "stop digging" category after realizing the depth of the hole you've put yourself in. I also find it informative that this is not a story that CBS considers competitive. In other words, no other "free press" organization is seeing what 60 Minutes saw and threatening to scoop them.

Based on what has been leaked about the story, I think it might be wise for CBS to re-examine it and make sure they "nail down" the details.

Eric: ... you'd rather consider the word of an Army general, Lechliter ...

This Lechliter? I encourage you, the DNC, and the Kerry campaign, to spend all your energies, time and money researching and educating the rest of us that "don't know the AWOL story" right up to the day of the election. Really. Focus. This is vitally important.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 1:54 PM | Permalink

In all this talk of the 'right' wishing to take CBS down I have to wonder if you're not missing something a bit bigger...like the American public in general?

I'm reminded of last fall's recall election in California when the LA Times smeared Schwarzenegger and 10,000 people dropped their subscriptions in disgust. In that case I believe the timing of the article was condemned more than the content and thus the blatant partisanship was condemned.

There are many citizens out there who may have preferences but aren't terribly political and who are simply disgusted by the unprofessional tabloid style smears passed off as journalism. I simply don't believe that every individual complaining to CBS and its affiliates are right-wing partisans or even Republicans. The Rather guard story was a one-sided hit piece, and to end up being based on forged documents was absolutely appalling.

You all can sit in your ivory towers and talk to each other about the meaning of it all, but I think the American public just wants people to be punished and the problem fixed.

Posted by: Syl at September 25, 2004 2:06 PM | Permalink

Well, it seems a lot of you think the republicans did this to get rather.
Then you really must be upset that he and his minions lied to you---unimpeachable source, complete confidence in the chain of custody of these document and on and on.
Reppublicans would have least made these documents somewhat believable. Only someone as far out in left field as rather and his staff would have ignored the experts, ignored the dissenting witnesses and went full speed ahead with the documents. (and to me this means that the DNC and Kerry campaign were involved)
As to importance--this was an attempt to influence an election using false documents and presenting false facts. If there isn't a media to trust---we are in for a bumpy ride.

Posted by: bethl at September 25, 2004 2:09 PM | Permalink

It's a moot point since the Bush campaign has decided not to challenge having Bob Schieffer moderate the debate, but would it REALLY be unfair if they had decided to issue such a challenge? Bob Schieffer as an individual has no responsibility for the report, or the subsequent stonewalling. But Bob Schieffer is not just an individual, he is also an employee and representative of CBS news. CBS executives decided not to investigate. CBS Nightly News was used to defend the 60 Minutes story. The entire organization stonewalled for days after it was obvious that their story had no credibility. CBS corporately did all this in support of a story that certainly LOOKS much more like a partisan hit piece than like any attempt at objective reporting. A moderator must be someone who can credibly be perceived as objective, I don't see how any employee of CBS fits that bill after the post "Danron" corporate stonewalling.

Even before this event CBS had about the same reputation for partisanship in the eyes of conservatives that Fox News has in the eyes of liberals. Would there be as much hand wringing about "fairness" in a parallel situation? Imagine if Tony Snow had been caught doing a hit piece on Kerry based on forged documents provided by an "unimpeachable" source that was revealed to be Stephen Gardner. Imagine if Fox News had stood by the story for 12 days as their own experts and sources disavowed the story. Would anyone cry out that it was "unfair" for Democrats to then demand that Brit Hume not moderate a debates? (Assuming he could get the gig in the first place)

Posted by: steve at September 25, 2004 2:09 PM | Permalink

Sorry, I must be a "republican wing-nut" who doesn't believe "the war" was sold on lies, etc. Having said that, and lived a few years in the real world, my experience is that in ANY profession successful people learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.Mapes: "I got them". Rather: "Who did they come from"? "Where did he/she get them"? "How do you know they're real"? The willful decision to not ask those questions by ANYONE in the process is all we need to know about CBS. The rest is BS.

Posted by: kent at September 25, 2004 2:13 PM | Permalink

Jesus Jay, if only the "flypaper" theory of combatting freepers could have worked as suggested by all the Bush administration neocons in Iraq!

Sorry Tim, won't visit those people (sic).

Read what Syl wrote, "In that case I believe the timing of the article was condemned more than the content and thus the blatant partisanship was condemned." Syl's comment illustrates the problem here, and that is that "truth is opinion". Syl, you can only conclude "blatant partisanship" IF the condemnation of the LAT was accurate and justified. I don't buy the premise, so the conclusion is null. The fact that the righwingers/conservatives/steroid/female abusing population of California voted for the man is irrelevant here.

To bethl, just what do you refer to when you state, "presenting false facts"? The content of the documents (which may be forged, not fake-big difference. If I steal your 10W-40 income tax form, crossout your signature and replace it with my name, I forged a signature, but bethl STILL really grossed X thousands of dollars). The secretary, Knox? corroborated the sentiment of Killian on 60 Minutes, no?

Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2004 2:23 PM | Permalink

Jay, after thinking about the issue, I suspect we're talking past each other a little. To me, as an outsider, the aftermath behavior is indeed how arrogant journos behave, a dog-bites-man story. Exactly, what did you expect. To you, as an insider, perhaps the story is that tribe members were given the same treatment that's meted out to everyone else. So to you, it's not dog-bites-man, which
is common, but dog-bites-*family*-*members* ("Gee, he's always been so friendly with us, whatever got into him?")

But when CBS and Dan Rather aired the defense which favorably compared the true raised small-font proportional-spaced superscript "th" of a fake memo, and the same-line monospaced pseudo-superscript "th" of a real memos, that was basically saying "Business suit, birthday suit, they're both suits, so those who have said I am naked are misguided - I am in fact wearing my birthday suit!"

Given the number of people involved in producing that defense, and that the CBS President probably reviewed it personally, that had to be scrutinized far more internally than any external articles.

In fact, I think "The Internet" would be a very convenient excuse for CBS executives to duck meaningful discussion. As in:

"Oh, that "Internut" thing ... I guess it just all went over my old grey head. Those "floggers", with their "arse feeds", there's only so much time in the day ..."

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 25, 2004 2:36 PM | Permalink

Perhaps I'm wrong...but how, and who, has proven that the documents shown by 60 Minutes were "fake", not forged, but fake, as in someone typed it up in on a computer, say, the last 6 months?

I thought the documents were unable to be authenticated?

Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2004 2:45 PM | Permalink

Professor Rosen:

Ban me if you want, but this post is just fucking hilarious on so many counts:

1) You engage in rank speculation (with plausible deniability and weaselling in the comments of course) that it's all an evil Roveian plot.

2) You try to make hay out of the fact that a poster on a conservative message board is *gasp* a Republican! You know, I've done some digging and I've found that the calls for Trent Lott to step down were driven by a partisan Democrat named Joshua Micah Marshall, as well as e-mails by a man named Syndney Blumenthal who had ties to the the Clinton administration! Wheels within wheels man! Oh, and Robert Sam Anson beat you to this angle by at least a week. Don't you read NYO?

3) I love how, as part of your conspiracy theory, you make approximatley a zillion references to discrediting CBS being a long-term goal of the right. First of all: Quotes? Citations? I'm totally a VRWC member and I never got this memo. I mean, I ain't a big fan of the librul meeja, but my number one goal was always to kick Michael Moore in the nuts. I woulda thunk that having a press which followed minimal fucking standards of fucking journalism would've been sort of a bi-partisan cause. Far be it from me to make spurious accusations based on minimal data, which I know you would like totally never do, but I can't help but thinking your constant association of the wish to discredit CBS with "the right" is an attempt to, how you say, discredit the idea of discrediting CBS?

4) I love how you discredit the first 24-hours of blogging about the memos, in which multiple bloggers had contacted multiple non-partisan typography experts, as so much partisan froth, but somehow the story became legitimate when big meeja got into the game and started belatedly contacting many of the same experts and doing the same thing.

5) Could you please just shut the fuck up and step the fuck out of the way? I mean, I understand your goal of saving the hides of those in your social/political/cultural class and maintaining the same hierarchical structure that allows you to have your powerful, easy job with all its prestige, but you're really just postponing the inevtiable and making it worse for yourself in the long run. Read this piece by conservative Republican Hugh Hewitt. Despite the fact that he's a Republican, which apparently means we should discredit every word that comes out his mouth, I think a lot of the changes he's talking about will realistically happen, and your arrogance and defensiveness will only exacerbate the situation.

6) Fuck you

PS- I have an arrest warrant faxed to me from a source I find "unimpeachable" (meaning, of course, that he has a job in which impeachment by congress is not a possibility) showing Professor Rosen's arrest for giving hand jobs for crack money in the Port Authority men's room. I know that some have questioned the authenticity of these documents, but they're all Republican political operatives and it's most likely a plot by Karl Rove. Even if the documents are not authentic I still stand by the essential truth of my story. Now stop questioning me you partisan wingnuts!!

PPS- Okay, so they weren't real, but at worst this was a minor snafu and a distraction from the real issues. With respect, Professor Rosen, Answer the questions! We know that discrediting those who seek to discredit Professor Rosen has long been a goal of the left. Is that possibily where the documents came from?

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 25, 2004 2:46 PM | Permalink

Eric: ---Syl's comment illustrates the problem here, and that is that "truth is opinion"---

Whereas in your case with that Lechliter fellow, opinion is truth.

---Syl, you can only conclude "blatant partisanship" IF the condemnation of the LAT was accurate and justified---

Wrong. There wasn't enough time for the public to determine accuracy before the election (the timing, you see). Therefore whether the assertions were true or not is irrelevant and the condemnation of partisanship was justified.

The public is sick and tired of crap like that.

Posted by: Syl at September 25, 2004 2:51 PM | Permalink

Eric D.: I think your comment speaks eloquently of the hatred and quality of mind you bring to the subject, so I will leave it up. This part especially: "Could you please just shut the fuck up and step the fuck out of the way?"

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 25, 2004 3:07 PM | Permalink

Anna: We ourselves are fairly rational, and associate with other rational people of "our kind"; we have considerably less first-hand exposure to our counterparts of the "other kind". Much of our opinion of them is formed by what our betters (the A-listers) say about them; what the A-listers are most likely to get worked up enough to remark upon, is the most egregious offenses of the opposition. Voila' - all our personal and vicarious experience supports the conclusion that the opposition is made up of extremists.

Jay: The most tantalizing piece of evidence, to me, is Buckhead's membership in the Federalist Society.*

Eric: Sorry Tim, won't visit those people (sic).

Liberalism, in descending or ascending order?

* I'm not sure I understand why, and may be misinterpreting this. But it seems odd that a free press guy would be tantalized by free associations. Seems rather odd for a leftist to practice their own form of McCarthyism.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 3:28 PM | Permalink

Perhaps Thornburgh was chosen because he was once sued by Karl Rove. Certainly CBS's kind of Republican: one with a possible grudge against Bush's chief political strategist.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/01/karl_roves_laws_1.html

Posted by: person of choler at September 25, 2004 3:34 PM | Permalink

To even hint that this was a plot by some conservative group or other means the group in question must be absolutely certain of something. And absolutely correct.
That is, that Rather and company are such fools that they'd fall for it.
They'd commit all the various journalistic sins that freshmen starting out on the high school paper are warned about.
How on earth would this putative group of plotters get this idea?
What would make them think that CBS would abandon--presuming it ever had them--every journalistic standard and every procedure in pursuit of George Bush?
Experience, maybe? Or a vague hope?
Perhaps CBS's day-to-day behavior over the years made this group of plotters absolutely sure. And they were right, too.
Unfortunately, this is going to have to be CBS' defense.
"You know how dumb a cherrystone clam is? We're dumber. You know how we're supposed to know black from white and up from down? Never had a clue. You know how morons with axes to grind are winnowed out by first-level journalistic caution and research? Not us, boy. We fall for anything. You know how reporters spend years learning to look for red flags? We thought a red flag was what a matador uses. And we have no earthly idea why anybody pays us for the shit we pump out."
If they can't make this case solidly, they'll be left with the reality, which is that they deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to subvert a presidential election with documents they knew to be fraudulent.
There are no other explanations.
As a reinforcement, see the story they bumped for this one. The story about the forged Niger docs.
This was going to make it look as if Bush went to war on the basis of clumsy forgeries when, in fact, they had nothing to do with the decision, either in the administration or the Congress. As everybody knows, including CBS. Unless CBS is really, really dumb. Maybe they can make that one work twice.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 25, 2004 3:44 PM | Permalink

I said it was unlikely the target was CBS. I said there was no proof that it was. I said Buckhead's membership in The Federalist society was "tantalizing," but that it might also mean nothing, and be just a coincidence. What tantalizes can also mislead.

If on the basis of those statements you want to score comment board points on me for claiming this was a Republican plot, go ahead. But it's kind of thin. But I didn't claim anything like that.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 25, 2004 3:56 PM | Permalink

Jay:

So, in other words, as per usual you ignore the substance of an opposing point-of-view to focus on some issue of guilt-by-association or some issue of tone or style. The words you write, filled as they are with sleazy insinuations and partisan political attacks, are of exactly the same level of spuriousness as mine. Yet, you couch them in this "nuanced" language of pseudo-objectivity while surreptitiously making points that are exactly as partisan and filled with exactly the same degree of "hatred" and partisanship. In short, you comport yourself in the exact same manner as the "MSM" or "legacy media" that you pretend to critique but in reality reflexively defend, with pro forma denunciations of some individual reporters and stories thrown in order to feign objectivity. So, here are my points, phrased less colorfully so you can't duck and run this time.

1) You are indulging and baseless speculation that "the right" is involved in the production of fraudulent memos, with CYA weasel words thrown in.

2)Your attempted character assassination of "Buckhead" by virtue of guilt-by-association is a McCarthyite tactic and is contemptible.

3) You assert that "discrediting CBS" in particular is a long-term goal of "the right". First of all, you offer no concrete evidence of this. While there is definitely built-in opposition between the center/left MSM and those on the right, just as there is tension between the hard left and the MSM, the idea that CBS was an especial target of conservatives is, at least, arguable. Also, I question what relevance this fact has. It seems you are trying to spin an interest in having a free press which meets minimal standards of journalism as partisan issue and trying to dismiss criticism of CBS/Rather as partisan, right-wing criticism, much like Rather himself has as you note.

4) This one stands as it is. You're incorrect, factually, and you should correct the post.

5) Since you seem to think that everyone's political/social/cultural/professional affiliations are so relevant, I can only note that you are both an MSM reporter and a J-School professor. That is, you are a member of two priestly castes which you rightly point out are threatened by this story. Hence, you do not have standing to comment according to your logic. The linked Hugh Hewitt piece I think points out the direction things could realistically go and most of your response to these changes I find to be akin to standing athwart history yelling "stop!"

6) Still stands as is.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 25, 2004 4:00 PM | Permalink

This is becoming silly, but I'll engage one last time assuming that I'm dealing with "serious" people:

To Syl, Lechliter is but one source. Marty Heldt is another. Paul Lukasiak is another still. In contrast, no one on your side of the debate can answer the questions of where Bush was for 4-6 months and what was he doing?

I'm not sure what you're now arguing WRT to LAT/Gropinator? Are you stating that LAT was biased against Ahnuld and as proof they wrote an article contending that he has a, shall we say, past with women? Your last statement ("crap like that") to mean insinuates that there must be a "barrier" of some sort about publishing damaging information against any repub, er, politician. Lemme guess, no bad things against republicans within 5 weeks of their election?

I still didn't get an answer that the documents were PROVEN fake, not forgeries.

With all due respect Tim, I've read some of the things at FR, and LGF, and they are very bad. And yes, they are worse than KOS or Atrios. Sorry.

Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2004 4:07 PM | Permalink

Jay: If on the basis of those statements you want to score comment board points on me for claiming this was a Republican plot, go ahead. But it's kind of thin. But I didn't claim anything like that.

That's not what I'm getting at. Please, let me try again and perhaps help me understand.

What does McDougald's membership in the Federalist Society tell us, or imply? What is "tantalizing" about belonging to that tribe? How does it relate to the memos, or Burkett, or Rather, or CBS?

I'm guessing, and may be completely wrong, that what you find tantalizing is a conflation between your perceived long-standing crusade by "The Right" against Rather/CBS and perhaps a perception of the Federalist Society that might carry on such a grudge.

Otherwise, I don't get it.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 4:09 PM | Permalink

Here:

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/newcomer/index.htm

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 25, 2004 4:10 PM | Permalink

Eric: With all due respect Tim, I've read some of the things at FR, and LGF, and they are very bad. And yes, they are worse than KOS or Atrios. Sorry.

But I didn't ask you to evaluate the relative or overall badness of any those sites, did I? I didn't ask you to pass judgement on anyone's humanity or peopleness (sic), did I?

With a wave of your hand you both discounted my question and dehumanized those people.

"This is becoming silly, but I'll engage one last time assuming that I'm dealing with "serious" people:"

You got off to a poor start then, didn't you?

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 4:23 PM | Permalink

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, not even American. I have avidly been following this affair since it first broke on the Internet. It's been great fun!

As a consequence of "Rathergate", I have decided not to ever watch 60 Minutes anymore... (I watched it mostly for Andy Rooney's segment, anyway.)

But I do hope there will be other investigative news programs in the future, because -- if journalistic standards can be upheld THIS TIME -- the world sorely needs them.

Is there a leftist bias in the media? I can only speak for my own country, Sweden, where the answer is a definite yes. But I'm optimistic: the Baby Boomers are not getting any younger. A generational shift is inevitable.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Posted by: A.R.Yngve at September 25, 2004 4:27 PM | Permalink

How's CNN's crediblity today? Check out what Jeff Greenfield said after the Tailwind story, a remarkable parallel but done much differently.

Apology on Imus ca. July 14, 1998 (date on the .ra file)
http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/tailwind2.ram (audio)

The original promo he did on Imus was two weeks earlier and is at (ca. July 2, 1998)
http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/tailwind1.ram (audio)

Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 25, 2004 4:46 PM | Permalink

Eric> anyone who follows the Bush/AWOL story (like David Ehrenstein) KNOWS that there is much to the assertion that Bush WAS AWOL (or a deserter)!

Amazing how, with allegedly so much purportedly compelling argument and evidence available, in five years of searching, Mary Mapes & Co. failed to come up with anything that would play outside the Dhimmicratic Underground Bobblehead Legion.

Eric> No information, absolutely none, that has come to light has suggested anything otherwise.

Putting aside for the moment that pesky little 'innocent until proven guilty' thing which lands the burden of proof squarely where it belongs upon the accusers' shoulders, the fact of Bush's honorable discharge is extremely strong 'suggestion' otherwise.

Eric> The secretary, Knox? corroborated the sentiment of Killian on 60 Minutes, no?

That would be the alleged sentiment refuted by Killian's widow and son both before and after the broadcast (which refutation 60 Minutes ignored and neglected to reveal). The alleged sentiment refuted by Killian's CO (who was tricked into 'authenticating' the memos and has since repudiated them). The alleged sentiment refuted by other members of the squadron. One self-confessed Bush-hating clerk does not for corroboration make in the face of all that, no matter how much Mapes & Co. might clap their hands over their ears and chant 'lalalalalala' at the tops of their voices.

Posted by: Achillea at September 25, 2004 5:23 PM | Permalink

Hey Achilles, I'll bet you support O.J. Simpson.

He couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole. He was found innocent by a "jury of his peers," right?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 25, 2004 5:44 PM | Permalink

Jay Rosen sez:

"The most tantalizing piece of evidence, to me, is Buckhead's membership in the Federalist Society."

Buckhead's membership in the Federalist Society is irrelevant. *Buckhead* is irrelevant. Someone had to be the first to notice the bleeding obvious, and he happened to be it. It's not surprising that conservatives were the first to notice problems with the memo - they had both the motive to question the truthfulness of the story and sufficient distrust of CBS to imagine that it was *possible* that Dan Rather would go on the air with laughably fake documents in order to smear a Republican president.

What I think is missing from the commission's charge is to investigate questions of broader patterns of politcal bias:

How often do employees of CBS news cooperate directly with Democratic campaigns?
What other anti-Bush crusades are currently being waged by Mapes?
What other anti-Bush crusades are currently being waged by people *other* than Mapes?

If the commission's doesn't confront the fact that political bias is a major part of the problem, they're wasting their time.

Posted by: ralph phealn at September 25, 2004 6:42 PM | Permalink

FWIW, this meme that Buckhead was the first, even at FreeRepublic, or that without his post the "authenticity" (that seems such a euphamism) of the memos' based on their appearance would not have been questioned is classic structural bias.

Buckhead made a better story than TankerKC and the typography debate (as opposed to the style or content) captured the techie nature of many bloggers and fit MSM's Master Narrative about the denizens of the 'Net - helping to introduce this new tribe called bloggers.

What's great about the blogosphere is even with this story, aspects that are being distorted, misrepresented or overlooked by MSM are still being analyzed and recorded on blogs. I have not yet seen a good MSM story discussing the red/blue team dynamic that took place between LGF/Power Line and Daily Kos. Seth Finkelstein took an interest in exploring a near simultaneous and intitially parallel track as this story made its way to MSM outlets.

As with most events, this one is more complex than the reductivism of MSM's structural bias allows and the person credited with a discovery is often someone who shared in a chain of communications.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 7:24 PM | Permalink

Eric:

"To Syl, Lechliter is but one source. Marty Heldt is another. Paul Lukasiak is another still. In contrast, no one on your side of the debate can answer the questions of where Bush was for 4-6 months and what was he"

You are dealing with serious people and we assume you're serious too. Here's how it looks from a conservative perspective.

1) Why does Bush have to prove anything? Doesn't that put the burden of proof on him to establish his innocence in the absence of evidence? Produce the evidence, not forgeries, and then let the chips fall where they may.

2) No one cares what Bush did in the TANG. That was 30 years ago. Since then he has been governor of Texas for four years and President for three years. People can judge him on his record in the most trying of times, not on what he did as a 24 year old aviator.

3) Why doesn't Kerry release his own service and medical records? To use the logic of the left, he's clearly guilty because he's hiding something.

4) Why doesn't Kerry run on his record as Bush is running on his own? What has Kerry done in the Senate for the last 20 years that should inspire Americans with confidence that he will foster productive legislation on the crucial issues of our time?

5) Why doesn't Kerry put forward substantive proposals instead of engaging in increasingly hysterical ad hominem attacks on the President and on our allies?

6) Do you know why the left is fixated on Bush's TANG service? Because the left has nothing on Bush. Zilch. Nada. The employment rate matches the Clinton years. Interest rates are low (pace Carter). There have been NO terrorist attacks here. The left is bankrupt of ideas, of issues, and of character. Their desperation is breaking out on the faces of their proxies, the MsM.

7) The whole TANG issue has been godwinned: it's the equivalent of saying "Bush is Hitler." It's a desperate attempt at smear by association. In this case, it's particularly pitiful because the left has only it's own rhetoric to offer as proof.

It's all so pathetic. Let's talk issues. Show that you're serious people and not just hysterical, postmodern, truth-challenged, logic-lacking, smear machines.

Posted by: mk at September 25, 2004 7:37 PM | Permalink

Love the wingnut logic:

"No one cares what Bush did in the TANG."

yet at the same time --

"Why doesn't Kerry release his own service and medical records?"

Clue to the neo-fascists who troll this board: Kerry's history is there for all to see. Bush's isn't.

The CBS fiasco would appear to have innoculated FratBoyCoward from further scrutiny yet "rak" and his ilk (few of whom appear to have actual names) persist in having a cow.

Why can't you guys relax? It's perfectly obvious that as far as the "mainstream" media is concerned the story is over. All eyes are (or should be) on the ongoing disaster of Iraq.

Could it be that you sense the polls are wrong? Why else are Republican operatives (correction: closeted gay Republican operatives) now claiming that Liberals are out to ban the Bible?

What'samatta, dudes? Have you (clutch the pearls) lost your base ?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 25, 2004 8:02 PM | Permalink

No Mr. Ehrenstein, Senator Kerrey's history is not all there to be seen. If you are going to demand that President Bush account for every minute of his time spent in Alabama working on a political campaign then Senator Kerrey must be equally transparent. Untill then you are nothing more than another apologist for him.

Posted by: David King at September 25, 2004 8:34 PM | Permalink

Senator Kerry has nothing to apologize for -- unlike the Swift Boat LIARS!

Why did Bush refuse to take his physical?

Why did he shrug off his National Guard duty?

What was he actually doing in Alabama ?

I don't have the answer to these, and many other related questions. Your Chosen-by-Miss-God-Herself President does. And he ain't talking.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 25, 2004 8:41 PM | Permalink

Just got back from a trip and read this WHOLE thread, concluding that it has been singularly unproductive.

Jay, your comment rang this thread like a gong when you suggested that it was highly possible but unlikely it was that CBS who was the target of the fraud. To what avail? -- unsubstantiated conjecture that it was.

I think it is really hard for media -- TV, newspapers, bloggers -- to focus just on what we know and to be patient enough to wait for the next shoe to drop. The conjecture game is too easy to play.

Posted by: sbw at September 25, 2004 8:48 PM | Permalink

Nothing "unlikely" about these detractors at all. They're simply the suckers who went to Vietnam believing the lies administrations both Democratic and Republican spun about it and lived to regret it. But not regret it so much as to admit their regret like the anti-war veterans did.
Kerry served in Vietnam. He then came home and joined the anti-war movement -- like a great many other vetrans that people like you want to write out of history

Kerry has scarcely hidden this fact. It's there in his record for all to see. And he's more than willing to talk about it.

Trouble is, "Tim," you're not !

Ho old are you? Did you serve in the war - or did you have a Daddy capable of pulling strings to save your worthless ass he way Dubbya did?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 25, 2004 9:04 PM | Permalink

like a great many other vetrans that people like you want to write out of history

That's a lie, David. I do not want to write them out of history.

Kerry has scarcely hidden this fact.

Kerry has gone ballistic whenever his post-war activities have come up. He does NOT want to talk about it, and he does NOT want Jane Fonda and Al Hubbard sharing the stage with him.

Ho[w] old are you? Did you serve in the war - or did you have a Daddy capable of pulling strings to save your worthless ass he way Dubbya did?

Unlike the "immortal" you, David, I have many years of military service, lots of pretty ribbons and medals, right shoulder patch, and stories that bore everyone that wasn't there with me.

So, from the worthless ass category, why would I care what a prick like you thinks?

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 9:20 PM | Permalink

"Kerry has gone ballistic whenever his post-war activities have come up. He does NOT want to talk about it, and he does NOT want Jane Fonda and Al Hubbard sharing the stage with him."

Oh BULLSHIT! I suppose you've got that doctored photo placing him right next to Jane Fonda framed in your living room.

"Unlike the "immortal" you, David"

No dear, that's the immoral, me. Being gay I wasn't considered fit to train to murder perfect strangers in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

"why would I care what a prick like you thinks?
"

You answered my post, didn't you?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 25, 2004 9:31 PM | Permalink

No, Kerry's picture is nowhere to be found in my house. Not the fake one of him and Fonda or the real ones. In fact, no pictures of Fonda either.

Yes, but you never got the joke before.

Well then, don't let anyone tell you that I don't care.

Posted by: Tim at September 25, 2004 10:05 PM | Permalink

Well, sbw, I have a different interpretation. I am starting to think that the bigger divide in this country is between those who are capable of doubt, and those who have no doubt. Those who have views, but concede that not everything fits into them, as against those who have views, and make everything fit into them. Those who can live with uncertainty (for a while, maybe longer) and those who associate it with weakness of mind and character.

Here's an article on the theme, with reference to our political situation today-- if you're strong enough.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 25, 2004 10:19 PM | Permalink

Shorter Jay Rosen:

The great divide, sbw, is between geniuses like you and I, capable of nuance and reflection, and the great unwashed, incapable of such. Check out this link to a review of the new book What the Fuck is Wrong With the Idiot Commoners in the Heartland?, by the guy who who used to edit The Baffler.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 25, 2004 11:04 PM | Permalink

The Bob Schieffer apologists are out in force, but let's let some pesky *facts* intrude here for a moment:

Bob Schieffer quote, 8 days after original story (at this point, even my 3 year-old knew the documents were fake):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24633-2004Sep15?language=printer

"I think this is very, very serious," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "When Dan tells me these documents are not forgeries, I believe him. But somehow we've got to find a way to show people these documents are not forgeries."

And it gets worse....

9/17 (9 days later!) he was quoted using the confidential source excuse for not admitting the documents were fake:

Bob Schieffer of CBS News said, "I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries, I don't know how we are going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources."

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=22,34765

So it's a fair question to ask if he should be in control of the final debate, based on his words alone, not even counting his 20+ years as a Friend of Dan and his 30+ years at CBS News.

One other point: yes, we are getting right-wingers and Bush voters joining BoycottCBS.com; but we are also getting a lot of angry moderates who feel that basic fairness has been knowingly violated by CBS News. In that way, it is just like the Reagan miniseries protest. The Left chalked it up to the 'hard-Right,' but it was middle America that was in revolt, and THAT is why Les Moonves caved on that one and shipped it off to the graveyard that is Showtime.

Posted by: Michael Paranzino at September 25, 2004 11:56 PM | Permalink

Everybody should click thru to the Hugh Hewitt article in the Weekly Standard, which makes clear exactly what the right wants to see the mainstream media look like:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/668bjlln.asp

This is the only endgame the right will ever accept, anything else will be "left wing media".

There is simply no political and cultural space for an "above it all", "non-partisan", "expert" media any more. Either they will be forced into a totally neutered position where they are unable to tell the truth because it might offend somebody, or they will be viciously attacked for taking sides.

The Republicans have the better attack dogs right now. Look how much heat CBS is getting for getting fooled on forged documents in a relatively trivial story most of which was substantively true. Compare it to the amount of heat the administration took for getting suckered by the forged Niger documents, which were on a really important issue where their position was substantively completely false. The Republican propaganda superiority means the "mainstream" media is gradually getting pulled right.

Best for the left to invest in created its own version of Fox news -- a frankly ideological operation that still reports the news. The left doesn't have a Rupert Murdoch though.

Posted by: MQ at September 26, 2004 12:03 AM | Permalink

BTW, thanks to Eric above for pointing out the Hugh Hewitt piece -- I find it a very revealing one, though perhaps not in the sense he intended.

Posted by: MQ at September 26, 2004 12:04 AM | Permalink

I surfed in here via Instapundit. For my money, Eric Deamer has been the sharpest contributor to this thread.

Personally, I'd rather read Eric's shopping list than the echo-chamber-amplified navel-gazings of someone whose "work has appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review, Harpers, The Nation, The New York Times and Salon," "was the media editor of Tikkun magazine, where he was often published," and "was a fellow at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University."

Jay: "I think your comment speaks eloquently of the hatred and quality of mind you bring to the subject" in no way contradicts any of the substantial points Eric has made — and, in fact, is a faint echo of the larger MSM distaste for blunt, rough-and-tumble political debate, as opposed to its own style of mealy-mouthed dissembling, faux-objectivity, and tut-tutting at all us bumpkins.

You may not like Eric's tone of voice, but at least you don't have to read between the weasel words to figure out where he stands.

Oh, and to David E.: Leave the screaming-queen act at home in the Village, honey. Running your fingernails down a blackboard doesn't sway anyone to your side. And you don't speak for all gays any more than Al Sharpton speaks for all blacks. (I bet you really, really felt for Jim "I Am A Gay American" McGreevey, didn't you?)

Posted by: Reginleif at September 26, 2004 12:18 AM | Permalink

"Press criticism today is either partisan or viewed as partisan by partisan readers, and more readers than ever are partisan." Allen Barra.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 26, 2004 12:37 AM | Permalink

The first 90 minute debate occurs this coming Thursday, September 30th. If Kerry is rude. Or accusatory. Or says "Bush isn't elected, but selected," I think all bets are off.

Because the president, in such a case, should walk out. And, you bet, I think the ROAR from average Americans will be enormous. Not just against Kerry. But against the entire media establishment.

RaTHer set off something FAKE that's RADIOACTIVE. It's interesting that at first people can be radiated ... and not even know it.

Posted by: Carol Herman at September 26, 2004 12:54 AM | Permalink

In a free society, with real freedom of the press, if the administration isn't complaining about criticism and scrutiny from the media,the press isn't doing its job.

Let FOX tote water for the administration, and let other networks slam as hard as they can.

There's plenty of information available to make this administration squeal with pain if it's shared with the public. For CBS to postpone a story about the war because it would be 'inappropriate' to air it BEFORE the election is a far worse offense than airing, and then correcting, a story that had some flaws.

But I'm only a news consumer, and voter, in the 'greatest nation on earth'. Our press is a wet kitten compared to the coverage you can read in the UK, Canada, Australia, and no doubt in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

What's wrong with our media? You tell me. All I know is that I'm sick and tired of wishing for the good old days when Woodward and Bernstein were admired and Sam Donaldson 'dared' to beard the President face-to-face. Now Helen Thomas gets pushed to the back of the White House press room and nobody says a damned word about it.

Posted by: Jon R. Koppenhoefer at September 26, 2004 1:45 AM | Permalink

"(I bet you really, really felt for Jim "I Am A Gay American" McGreevey, didn't you?)"

No I didn't. Not at all.

Your post brings to mind my favorite line from Darling. Laurence Harvey to Julie Christie: "Put away your Penguin Freud, Diana."

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 10:11 AM | Permalink

Jay::Well, sbw, I have a different interpretation. I am starting to think that the bigger divide in this country is between those who are capable of doubt, and those who have no doubt.

Jay, you and I are absolutely on the same page here.

If there is a difference between us, it may be that I believe that while one should always be open to doubt, the doubt should be substantively based. In this instance, using Occam's Razor, simply because Karl Rove could have created a complex scheme that depended on Burkett being duped into carrying papers, CBS' willingness to fall for it, and Rather deciding to bump other stories to run it before the election, it is not yet worth dwelling on.

The possibility flies in the face of Brad DeLong's long-standing cry of anguish, "Why are we ruled by these fools?" IT would boggle the mind to have an administration that is at once represented as so foolish and now discover they are so cunning and devious.

But back to your point about unwillingness to doubt. I've have droned on about that most important journalistic characteristic -- humility. It leads one to constantly revise one's fabric of the world, weaving in the wisdom of your critics -- except We Don't Teach It In Schools. I dare you to find such a concept in any state education curriculum or standards. Please, find an instance for me.

Posted by: sbw at September 26, 2004 12:03 PM | Permalink

Hmm. Never knew that Vietnam was a Liberal war. Could have sworn millions of Liberals were against it. I expect my brain hasn't been washed as thoroughly as yours, "Tim."

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 12:52 PM | Permalink

sbw,
I agree that the Karl Rove plot angle assumes an incompetence at CBS that would make them deserving of whatever they got.

I take issue, however, with your point about Rovean Machiavellianism and Bush administration incompetence straining credulity. On the contrary, this is the conclusion credulity demands.

Rove's history since the 70s (he was nearly kicked out of the REPUBLICAN party for rigging an intraparty election! See Bush's Brain) and Bush's years in public office repeatedly demonstrate strategic brilliance in character assassination from the "rat-fucking" Nixonian school Rove was trained in, coupled with raving incompetence and cronyism in nearly every policy area Bush managed to turn his attention toward ("Blue skies" approval of more and faster mercury pollution, "predominantly middle class tax cuts" that shift the tax burden to the middle class, invasion of Iraq in the name of saving us from terrorists in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, "medicare discount cards" that cost seniors more than buying drugs from Canada and which refuse to negotiate prices with industry, thereby rejecting the market forces Republicans rhetorically embrace for the purpose of creating the cartels their policies consistently strive for).

All of this is generally combined with a rhetorical claim of doing precisely what his policies preclude (this is where the recent McCarthyite allergy to facts comes from. Bush and Rove's electoral success combined with steady and consistent real world failure seems to have changed the rules such that media incompetence not only allows, but REQUIRES lying to win. Lies and forgeries are Bush and Rove's stock in trade. Facts don't seem to stop Bush and the press doesn't seem to much care as you yourself have recognized. Coverage of the Allawi disinformation campaign is the latest exhibit along this line.)

It would seem that the Rovean method of programmatically governing with lies is an integral part of the administrative incompetence. The lies are taken more seriously than the policy disasters they routinely create. The lies are what they actually care about and work to sustain. That is the sole recognizable purpose of this administration, to fog, obfuscate, and misrepresent. And this is the only goal they can point to that they have effectively and consistently met.

Of course, we could only be upset with their performance if we entertain the possiblity that they might actually mean what they say.

There is an extraordinarily strong case for Rovean expertise in espionage and Bushian incompetence as a policy maker and administrator.

That is the record they have to run on. They should get credit for their accomplishments.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 1:07 PM | Permalink

Tim,
This rant is a sad commentary. Talk about yorking the york. It requires myth analysis to begin to dissect this mess.

To me the interesting question in twenty years will be to try and figure out how crusading imperialists managed to convince themselves that they were liberals.

Oh, yeah, that's what Teddy Roosevelt did in the Philippines. Never mind. 4,000 dead Americans, 400,000 dead Filipinos. But free, very free.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 1:14 PM | Permalink

I guess I'm raining on Jay and sbw's parade, but with an administration that works on the disinformation point of the day model, we seriously have to ask if we can afford the research model of journalism. If we were to try it out, for starters it would require FRONT PAGE HEADLINE COVERAGE when they can prove the lies are lies. That was the sad charade of press coverage that enabled the Iraq war. Blazing front page headlines trumpeting Chalabi/OSP lies and refutations of every single point on page 16A, three months later. That is how the media gets played for the Useful Fools they are.

Jay and sbw, help me out here. How do you connect this responsible, sober approach to journalism with the 24-hour news cycle of disinformation that passes for government and politics in the US today. The media needs to be arming itself and the public. Three months late and a dollar short isn't going to cut with folks who say, "Damn the truth, full speed ahead." And then say,
"We've already made a mess in Iraq, it's too late to talk about woulda, coulda, shoulda. What are you gonna do about the mess we've made now that it's a mess?"

We need a press that KEEPS US OUT OF THESE MESSES! That means robustly, loudly, and aggressively fact-checking the serial liars in the current administration. That requires rapid response. Please square this circle of sober research journalism and the speed it takes to respond to people who make it up as they go along.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 1:27 PM | Permalink

You have a very strange definition of Liberal, "Tim."

According to you (and the scribes at those links of yours) anyone who isn't a Republican is a Liberal.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 1:39 PM | Permalink

Tim,
When you read your Leo Strauss (or your Irving Kristol) a little more carefully, you will realize that when neo-conservatives say "democracy" they mean "rejection of the enlightenment idea of human equality." They mean "you get what you deserve, no more no less." They mean "survival of the fittest" and "respect for fundamentalism over rational doubt." When they say "free the forces of the market and deregulate the economy" they really mean "stop letting the government force corporations to compete. Get the government out so we can form the cartels that we desire."

Neo-conservatism is the death knell of the enlightenment. Neo-conservatism as practiced by the Republican party is opposed to economic democracy and free market competition in principle.

The idea that they could promote something they are opposed to in principle is one of the crueler jokes of the century.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 1:39 PM | Permalink

"That means robustly, loudly, and aggressively fact-checking the serial liars in the current administration."

Among many other things.

The whole thing about the Rather fiasco is the inane notion of producing a "smoking gun" document about Bush's National Guard years. This is a complex multi-faceted story requiring considerable documentation to tell properly. Even if the letters that CBS grabbed at were verified they would scacely have been the last word on the issue. But the ideology of today's news demands that everything be reduced to byte-sized bits, and there are two (just two, no more) sides to every story with reporters working to create the illusion that they're "objective" and above it all. At the same time they're lusting after the big "get" for dramatic purposes that have nothing to do with serious journalistic inquiry.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 1:48 PM | Permalink

"Neo-conservatism is the death knell of the enlightenment. Neo-conservatism as practiced by the Republican party is opposed to economic democracy and free market competition in principle.

The idea that they could promote something they are opposed to in principle is one of the crueler jokes of the century."

SING OUT LOUISE!

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 1:49 PM | Permalink

I left out Leo Strauss's demand for recognition of a moral rank order as the organizing principle of society for the elite decision makers, coupled with a strategic decision to let popular religion slide so this morally superior elite can stay in charge.

He is OPPOSED to democracy in principle because some people are more wise or virtuous than others, but sees it as a necessary evil that may strategically advance the interests of an appropriately conservative elite in our modern mixed form of government. And the proper term is REPUBLIC. You apparently didn't get the memo that democracy is a bad word to a neo-conservative.

Tim,
You're right, it just wouldn't be fair to the rest of the world if we didn't impose our elitist pseudo-democracy on them. This stuff is just too good to keep to ourselves. If you're not down with the neo-con philosopher-kings, you're not a true democrat.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 2:07 PM | Permalink

Ben: I take issue, however, with your point about Rovean Machiavellianism

Ben, the problem with your creative interpretation is that it requires so much complicity. Not only does the administration have to be stupid AND devious, but

Kerry and the Democrats have to play in to their hands,
the media have to be dim enough to overlook it all,
everyone has to ignore your observations, and
the soccer moms have to turn into security moms without good reason.

Ben: Jay and sbw, help me out here. How do you connect this responsible, sober approach to journalism with the 24-hour news cycle of disinformation that passes for government and politics in the US today.

Ben, The construction of your question suggests you believe journalism, to fight "the enemy", should morph to meet the enemy... and perhaps become no better than it. Besides, by running the Spinsanity.org column we resolutely meet the disinformation from the Democrats and Republicans. Your homework for the night is to address the media question how to distill the avalanche of overinformation on the internet down sensibly into news.

Ben: when neo-conservatives say "democracy" they mean...

Ben, it makes sense for all of us to fight through the labels to the stuff that makes sense underneath. I'll never be dogmatically neo-con or liberal, but I'm willing to buy in to whatever makes sense on either side. So your dissing by label ties up bandwidth and really doesn't forward conversion by one to your point of view.

Posted by: sbw at September 26, 2004 2:32 PM | Permalink

sbw,
I would say our core disagreement is that my "fighting through the label to the core underneath" apparently is your "dissing by label."

You effectively say that I'm "dissing" Republicans when I connect their rhetoric to their actions. Isn't that called "reporting?"

What term would more accurately describe an environmental proposal called the "Clear Skies Initiative" that increases mercury pollution than "disinformation?"

How did your paper treat this transparent and willful misrepresentation of policy substance, goals, and consequences? How does anything short of disinformation tell the reader what their government and ruling party is doing here?

You can't deny that the policy does change the law so that more pollution will occur. What should a responsible press call this act of "leadership" by misleadership that follows such a predictable and mendacious pattern?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 3:11 PM | Permalink

At a minimum, honest coverage would START with the header, "Republicans present a proposal to relax environmental standards, curiously calling it the 'Clear Skies Initiative.'"

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 3:17 PM | Permalink

Jay,

I'm in agreement with you that our real divide seems more along the lines of certainty/uncertainty than left/right. However, I find the NYRB article to be an ironic example of the genre. Uncritically accepting statements that Reagan's presidency "goehringed" the voters is an example of exactly the type of certainty that is poisoning our political discourse.

The article seems to uncritically accept Goehring's thesis that people can be led, as sheep, into or out of war by elites. If you accept Goehring's thesis than the best response is simply to try to get your own elites into power to guide people the way you think they should be guided.

The NYRB article accepts the foundation and process of Goehring-style tyranny but only disputes the ends.

That is not good enough for me. I dispute that Goehring is right. The question is how to create a new process for information, and the ends will work themselves out. Not perfectly, not immediately, but eventually. If you don't believe that, then you're going to end up with Goehring one way or the other.

Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 26, 2004 3:19 PM | Permalink

sbw,
Republicans will call this partisan spin, but you will only be guilty of telling the truth and refusing to be used to spread a disinformation meme, "Clear Skies Initiative."

If you repeat the disinformation tag before discussing it, you are being a Useful Fool, and doing Rove's lying work. That is not responsible journalism to my mind BECAUSE THE MEME IS A FLAT-OUT LIE.

This is black and white. As a journalist, to lie or not to lie, that is the question. If are interested in fact-checking you can't let the lie stand. Rove wants you to. How did you cover this lie at your paper?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 3:23 PM | Permalink

Film Walks Line Between Kerry Ad and War Documentary

[snip]

The Kerry campaign was at pains to say it had nothing to do with the film, particularly with the release falling so close to the election and thus subject to federal election laws. (The $1.2 million budget for the film was provided by Kerry supporters.) The candidate did not give Mr. Butler an interview for the film and appears only in historical footage.

Monday, the campaign issued this statement about the film: "When John Kerry was a young man, he showed physical courage in voluntarily fighting the war in Vietnam. When he came home, he showed moral courage in fighting to end a war where over 40,000 of the 58,245 Americans had already died. Any movie that educates the country on the Vietnam War and the troubled times that surrounded it, is an important lesson."

Michael Meehan, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, said that no one at the campaign had seen the film "that I know of," and that there had been no strategizing over how to use the film to help the candidate.

Interesting that the Kerry campaign isn't promoting it?

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 3:26 PM | Permalink

sbw,
I'm curious to hear your review of the Guardian coverage of the "Clear Skies Initiative."

Clear Skies for US, gloom for Kyoto
Bush's new environment policy fails to cut gas emissions.

www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/story/0,7369,650478,00.html

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 3:44 PM | Permalink

Ben: "Clear Skies Initiative"

Democrats mislabel bills and initiatives with equal alacrity. Why don't you say so? [If you disagree, you've never fisked a Daschle remark.] Where is your righteous indignation against them? Until you acknowledge the full scope of the problem, there is no point in proceeding. You cannot have your knickers in a bunch about the Republicans and remain oblivious of Democratic transgressions and expect sensible discussion to proceed.

Had you said "They both misrepresent", I might have agreed. Phrased your way, it is simply too easy to skip your comment and move on to the next entry.

Posted by: sbw at September 26, 2004 3:45 PM | Permalink

Ernest: "If you don't believe that, then you're going to end up with Goehring one way or the other."

Phrased another way, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

It does seem to be true. Or at least, much truer than is admitted in general.

Not believing it because it's unpleasant - even harsh - doesn't make it less true (isn't there a lesson in here somewhere?)

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 26, 2004 3:56 PM | Permalink

"Democrats mislabel bills and initiatives with equal alacrity. Why don't you say so?"

"He broke a window too mommy!!!" is not a serious argument.

Nothing compares to the Republican attack machine.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 4:07 PM | Permalink

Seth,

Well, to a certain extent it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you accepth that Goehring is right, then you're probably going to act consistent with that belief, which means an elitist takeover to get the sheep to follow what you think are the proper ends.

Democracy and freedom of thought are all about faith. If you have no faith in democracy, you'll not long have democracy. Faith is not the only thing you need, of course, but it is a necessary element.

Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 26, 2004 4:11 PM | Permalink

sbw: Perhaps if schools taught with the intent of creating intellectuals with a dual role: civility and subversion? What if the press operated with the same goals in mind?

How can we maintain civility AND subversion in our discussions? Consider illocutionary discourse and knowingness in your answer.

And how do we avoid being distracted by Label Literacy.

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 4:48 PM | Permalink

sbw,
You are ditching the consideration of fact question you have yourself been calling for.

Have Daschle's misrepresentations recently made the air I breathe more polluted? (I will concede he was complicit in the Boeing-Air Force Tanker rental scandal. Does that mean he's corrupt? Yes. Does that mean he's philosophically mistaken about all policy and lies about nearly EVERY bill he proposes in the same systematic way as Bush and Rove? No. This ties into the flame post above about Tom Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? If the unwashed masses are really with Bush and Rove, why does the administration have to lie about every policy initiative they propose?)

I would gladly vote for a principled third party if we had one that was competitive. Does their absence or the Democrats unforgivable incompetence make Bush and Rove any less dangerous? No.

Have the Democrats recently led my country into a war that I oppose on pretenses that were known to be false before the war started? No. They showed themselves to be spineless dupes, intimidated by Republicans and McCarthyism.

Journalism calls for priorities. Lies from the people in charge clearly have more immediate relevance to the welfare of the country.

Which previous administrations have withheld EPA studies on competing bills? Withheld budgets before votes? Fired scientists from ethics committees for religious reasons? Promoted known disinformers of convenience like Chalabi? (The CIA and the State Department both had him pegged for the lying scumbag he is years ago. The "nobody knew" defense denies the known facts and the willful ignorance/maliciousness of the president and the advisors he trusts.)

Your non-response dogmatically assumes an answer to the question before investigating it.
This is an example of "he said, she said" journalism at its worst.

How will we know if a party is lying us into the abyss if we have concluded before we even check out the story that "they all do it." That is precisely the cynicism that lets Rove and Bush play the game they play. A refusal to take them at their word and hold them to it. "Everybody does it, so Bush and Rove are never responsible for their rhetoric OR their actions OR the surrealistic gap between the two."

Bush and Rove systematically govern through misrepresentation. They have set a new standard.

I gave you an iron-clad example that we could have had a detailed and informative discussion around concerning how the misrepresentations were handled by the press. You're not interested. Instead of responding, you change the subject.

Republicans are justifiably not satisfied with a defense of CBS that says "they all do it" so no one is responsible for CBS' actions.

I am asking a principled question about how the Bush/Rove disinformation machine operates through the MSM and that's closed for discussion? Why the defensiveness? Why the double standard?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 4:59 PM | Permalink

A few responses to various points...

sbw: I made no suggestion of Karl Rove being behind the memos. In fact, I said it was amusing to hear people on the Left jump to that conclusion. To say that such-and-such is "possible, but unlikely, and there's no proof" is to introduce doubt--quite a lot of it--into one's observation at the beginning.

Ernest: It's nice to find someone who agrees with the general sentiment behind: I am starting to think that the bigger divide in this country is between those who are capable of doubt, and those who have no doubt. We have Stephen, me, you... that's three and counting.

When I link to something it means only one thing: "check it out, there's something valuable in it." It almost never means: "this is what I think." For the present post, here is the list of sources I have pointed to in the check-it-out category, including the "After" section and the comments. The list incorporates doubt about where truth is found across the spectrum.

New York Times
Wall Street Journal (news section)
Opinion Journal
New York Post
Online Journalism Review
National Journal
Wall Street Journal (editorial pages)
Weekly Standard
The Moderate Voice (blog)
Salon
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Salon
New York Review of Books

Now compare that list to this comment...

Salon, The New York Review of Books, Where's the next link from? Counterpunch? The North Korean State Press Organ?
Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 26, 2004 11:12 AM | Permalink

...And you have a sense of the conflict that I see out there. Beneath the grim humor, there is rage. But it's not rage at a Lefty for feeding us only Lefty sources. It only looks that way; it pretends to be that. It's really a statement of rage at the habit of doubt.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 26, 2004 5:19 PM | Permalink

What is the difference between Arthur Anderson and CBS Neww. Both were organizations that relied on their integrity to remain in business. What is so special about CBS News that they should remain in business when their integrity is shot and Arthur Anderson should not?

Posted by: Tim Gannon at September 26, 2004 5:19 PM | Permalink

Ernest and Seth,
The real world approach to your question is,"Now that the Goehring rules are ALREADY IN FORCE, what are you going to do about them?"

For support, see yesterday's New York Times editorial on the Republican hierarchy programmatically accusing Democrats with a better anti-terror strategy of being appeasers who are soft on terror that will endanger your life. They even have Allawi outdoing Cheney with a brand new lie about how more 9/11s were destined to happen with Saddam in power. Apparently he gets the memos from Rove now, too, because the garbage that comes out of his mouth sure as hell doesn't fit Iraq.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 5:20 PM | Permalink

Ernest: That is not good enough for me. I dispute that Goehring is right. [and then later] Democracy and freedom of thought are all about faith. If you have no faith in democracy, you'll not long have democracy. Faith is not the only thing you need, of course, but it is a necessary element.

What were your thoughts when you read this?

Throughout most of human history, however, the surrender to the will of an omnipotent god who punishes us if we stray and forgives us if we obey has prevailed. The fear of excommunication and exile, the comfort taken in solidarity, unanimity, and orthodoxy, the pride in tribal markings, in uniforms, flags, and what Napoleon called the scraps of silk for which men will willingly die; the idolatrous obedience to leaders speaking in god's name, the fear and demonization of otherness and the corresponding dream of universal allegiance to one's own tribal dogma—Christian, Islamic, Marxist, and most recently neoconservative— these reflexes are as much a part of our vulnerable humanity and common history as our addiction to fat and sugar and our submission to the manipulated epiphenomena of sex.

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 6:17 PM | Permalink

Jay: "I am starting to think that the bigger divide in this country is between those who are capable of doubt, and those who have no doubt."

Isn't this just saying liberals and intellectuals, versus conservatives and demagogues?

That's rather old-hat.

(though of course, no less true).

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 26, 2004 6:18 PM | Permalink

Tim,
Are you saying the great divide is between those who doubt and those who know no doubt and you know no doubt?

"I think it will be interesting to look back in 20 years and discuss how the Left in America became impotent, lazy, small-minded cowards while the greatest liberal reformations took place under Republican "neo-conservative" administrations.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 6:29 PM | Permalink

Ben: Are you saying the great divide is between those who doubt and those who know no doubt and you know no doubt?

No, I'm saying that those who know no doubt are impotent, lazy, small-minded cowards.

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 6:32 PM | Permalink

Sorry to say this, but the "doubting vs. certainty" distinction strikes me as just more liberal self-congratulation on the retreat from politics. The kind of thing to comfort yourself with while you lose elections. "Doubting" is an academic value -- it's the value of those who reflect on and examine the world from a distance. Both Jay and probably the guy who wrote that article are professors. Don't get me wrong, doubt is an extremely important value to have, even if one is in an action position -- it brings humility and helps you refine your decisions. But as a *primary* value it comes from the world of the seminar room. Seminars work in academia, where there is a culture to support them. But right now the world of the media and politics is the world of propaganda and entertainment, not seminars. Involved and complex seminars that acknowledge the full complexity of the world do not work there, as you can see from the response to Kerry.

In order to fight in that world, liberals need to develop their ability to function in that world, not retreat to seminars. Once there is some real power balance in American politics again -- once Democrats control some important institutions and have regained traction in the media -- then there will be space to bring back values of non-partisan deliberation and "doubt". But until they are forced to back off, Republicans will just press their propaganda advantage until their enemies are totally driven from the field.

Posted by: MQ at September 26, 2004 6:42 PM | Permalink

Let me give you an example of an impotent, lazy, small-minded, cowardly statement from this administration:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 6:45 PM | Permalink

Here's one from CBS: Asked at the time whether there was at least a slight chance that the documents were bogus, [CBS News President Andrew] Heyward said: "I see no percentage of possibility."

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 6:50 PM | Permalink

MQ: I enjoy these reminders that the seminar room is not the real world because, well, damn they look so much alike, who can keep those siblings straight all the time? I enjoy, with equal vigor, the two-and-a-half lectures per comment thread about my ivory tower habitat. And I'm waiting for the denunciation of "rootless cosmopolitans," which I sense is coming, although that probably won't be as much fun.

I don't disagree with what you said, MQ. Nor would I recommend taking my distinction ("those who are capable of doubt, and those who have no doubt") into political battle. The last thing the Democrats need is to doubt themselves now. It's a fight, the fight is part of a war, war is not fought by deliberation. You can't win without getting your hands dirty.

But my job is not to find things that help win the election for the Party. It is true, then, that I am one of "those who reflect on and examine the world from a distance."

Would you not agree, MQ, that an inability to doubt their own plans and predictions, and examine them from a distance, has hurt the Administration's war team, and caused great harm to their own cause, on the ground, in Iraq? If that is true, then the seminar room and the war room have more to do with one another than many people think.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 26, 2004 7:32 PM | Permalink

Well geewilickers Jay, have you and your oh-so-enlightened cohorts ever thought to doubt, thought to fucking question for a fucking second, any aspect of your master narrative that the Bush administration is either: a)A bunch of moronic, inept bumbelers, or b) A bunch of evil geniuses capable of engineering complex conspiraces.

You see, the reason I ask is that, above, there is this discussion in which some of you are able to somehow wrap your refined, doubting minds around the concept that the two descriptions are mutually exclusive. What's funny is that, because of your fear of doubt, because of your absolute fucking self-regard and puffed-up egos, you don't for a second entertain any doubt over your original self-constructed master narrative.

Maybe neither is true? Maybe the reality is a bit more complex, a bit more, you know, nuanced?

Or is that too much doubt for this crowd?

And MQ you are full of massive willful partisan blindness if you think the Democrats don't have the better attack dogs: Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, Howard Dean, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, the Daily Kos, Atrios, JaneAne Garofalo, Ted Rall, James Carville, Paul Begala and on and on and on and on . . .

The Democrats have been nastier, more partisan, and more on the attack for the entire time I've been concious of politics (since the mid 80's). The hard left controls the universities and Hollywood. The Center left controls the MSM. Yet you still lose elections and the average Americans whom you claim to speak for for the most part can't stand you.

Did you ever entertain for the slightest second the idea that maybe it's your ideas that are wrong and not some issue of style or tactics? Or are you one of those who are afraid of doubt?

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 26, 2004 7:33 PM | Permalink

And I'm waiting for the denunciation of "rootless cosmopolitans," which I sense is coming, although that probably won't be as much fun.

Well Jay, I've lived my entire adult life in Sao Paulo, Busan, Seoul, Chicago, and New York, so I'm not about to embark on that denunciation. I live in New York just like you do. Or do you assume that anyone who doesn't share your worldview is out typing on a wooden keyboard in some shack in Kansas wearing a "God Hates Fags" baseball cap, with Aunt Bessie running the hand-cranked generator for them? Is that what Thomas Frank told you?

I'm pro-choice and outsponkenly pro gay civil marriage, anti-war on drugs, etc. etc. I would bet that there might even be people whom you know personally and see on a daily basis who don't follow straight-ticket P.C. paleo-"liberalism" and have some more nuanced, doubt-fueled outlook. They would probably never admit if for fear of being accused of thought-crimes of course.

Or does the thought that not everyone follows the depressingly reductive, reactionary, stereotypical combination of culture and politics that you do inject too much potential for doubt into your Manichean worldview?

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 26, 2004 7:59 PM | Permalink

Those are the only choices we get? Nothing else on the menu?

How about the fact that being deemed bumblers or geniuses matters less than the actual result of four years of BushCo.

1) A war promulgated on lies now out of control.

2) We are despised world-wide (and that's NOT as you would like to believe in your tiny binary mind that everyone who objects to the U.S. is an Al Queda operative.)

3) The biggest deficits in history, millions out of work with no prospects.

Want more?

Would it matter?

Do you give a shit ?

Nope. It's "I've got mine -- fuck you!" all the way.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 8:40 PM | Permalink

"I'm pro-choice and outsponkenly pro gay civil marriage, anti-war on drugs, etc. etc."

Well mother pin a Giant Fucking Rose on you!

I'm so impressed I could just shit.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 8:42 PM | Permalink

Dave Shrillenstein:

I see your name and automatically don't read the post, so please don't bother responding to me personally. Thank you.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 26, 2004 8:43 PM | Permalink

Jay: You didn't fully get the point I was trying to make, which is probably my fault. I am not trying to be a simple anti-intellectual here. (As it happens, I'm an academic myself -- check out how long winded I am!). Of course "doubt" and the academic habit of mind can make action more effective in the long run. That is precisely why contemporary Democrats are notably more competent at actual *governance* than Republicans are (compare Clinton to Bush II; Bush I was not so bad at governance as his son because he didn't let the new ideological conservatives into his inner circle, for which they never forgave him).

But Republicans are much better at propaganda, at manipulating public discourse. And this blog is about the media and the press, which is in the end about public discourse. Your call for thoughtful, doubtful attention to complexity in public discourse is about trying to reserve a role for journalists as professional moderators of the public debate who hold themselves above the propaganda from either side. This ties in with journalism as a professional identity. I don't question your sincerity in doing that, nor your motives -- I actually think that kind of non-partisan space it crucial to democracy. What I question is whether it is an achievable goal. The media is just too important as a medium for propaganda for the right to let it be controlled by an ethic of professional journalism. The Right has a mass movement and a fully functional alternative institutional structure, all designed to undermine the control professional journalists exert as interpreters of the world to the public. I really believe that at this historical moment the only way that space will be created for non-partisan public reflection of the kind we probably both favor is to take back some institutional power for the left. A rough balance of political power is what creates space for "non-partisanship" in the center; when neither side can fully overcome the other then non-partisan statesmanship becomes more appealing. But the right is trying to sweep the table right now; they are trying to get control of all the more important institutions. Trying to remain neutral and above the fray in such a situation is impossible. If you're not with the Right you're against it.

You *are* in a political battle Jay, you *are* in a war, you have already chosen sides just by being willing to actively question the Republican line. You just aren't willing to admit it. Your conservative commentors understand it, though. They sense you aren't on their side, hence you're the enemy.

Posted by: MQ at September 26, 2004 9:04 PM | Permalink

This discussion about liberalism and doubt sparked a review of recent rhetoric for taking this country to war (without UN or Congressional approval) and the debate:

President Clinton Addresses the Nation about Kosovo, March 24, 1999
President Clinton interview by Dan Rather, March 31, 1999
President Clinton's remarks to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1999
President Clinton speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Kosovo, May 13, 1999
PBS News Hour: Voices of Dissent, May 24, 1999
President Clinton's Statements on Kosovo, Selected quotes from March 19 - June 1, 1999 (WaPo)
President Clinton Addresses the Nation, June 10, 1999

Provided for anyone else that wants to compare/contrast/consider.

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 9:06 PM | Permalink

MQ,
Thanks. You just said what I was trying to say earlier in the thread in a more articulate way. US politics is now a 24 hour disinformation cycle and the Repubicans ARE trying to sweep the table.

Eric,
When I was a Republican, I used to like to think it was all more complicated, too. It turns out the morally superior gesture toward complexity that the poor non-Republicans refuse to understand is just part of the con. Even when I was Republican I was never brainwashed enough to believe that Democrat attack machine was worse, though. Wow!

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 9:14 PM | Permalink

MQ, you've put your finger right on it. War was declared when Clinton ( a centerist) was elected, and there's no use pretending that Peace is coming anytime soon.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 26, 2004 9:14 PM | Permalink

Eric: The left definitely does *not* control either academia, Hollywood, or the MSM in anything like the way the Republicans control politics and the right-wing media network. Academia is about publication, Hollywood about money and fame, the MSM about ratings. The personal politics of people in those institutions might tend toward being left, but that only matters at the margins. The institutions themselves are not set up to propagandize for a particular political line, to get and hold political power. (There might be a small exception here for a very few humanities field, such as gender studies and black studies). The Republicans have set up an institutional network that is about doing precisely that, and it is working. That's why it doesn't matter that the left has a few talented individuals working for them, the institutional network isn't there at all.

To say that the Democrats have ever done anything in the way of partisanship that is even vaguely close to what the Republicans did during the Clinton impeachment is completely ridiculous and shows your own partisan blindness.

And third -- I think you are absolutely correct that the power of the Republican right has to do with its message and not just its partisans. I do think the Republican ideological line has greater resonance with American traditions than the Democratic one does. That's a big reason their propaganda is more effective. The U.S. has always been a fairly conservative country (probably because from an early date our institutions worked pretty well for the majority of the population), and the left has always had to struggle to build legitimacy. But that doesn't change my belief that the Democrats offer the policies that objectively serve the public better now. Conservative ideology has always had force in this country, and the power of ideology and propaganda is that it can blind people to their own actual interests.

Posted by: MQ at September 26, 2004 9:16 PM | Permalink

Ah, civility, how do we miss thee.

Wasn't accusing you of doing anything more than linking. I was only pointing out that, while the article talked about doubt a great deal, it didn't exhibit all that much. It is a pitfall we must all be careful to avoid, but will likely fall into eventually.

As for whether this is ivory tower, I don't think so. There is room in our politics for a radical moderates, for those who demand more than demogoguery of the right or left (I see "true believers" on both sides, Seth).

If you decide to be Goehring to beat Goehring, you've already lost, no matter what gains you make in the short term. Fighting fundamentalism of all sorts is not easy and no short term project. Yet, it is hardly a simple matter of the ivory tower. We can all only do what we can to keep the enlightenment project on track.

Tim, a lot of people prefer certainty to doubt, there is no question about it. But it is, in the end, a choice, one we can reject.

Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 26, 2004 9:19 PM | Permalink

Let's see. We were talking about journalism when Ben chimed in accusing Karl Rove of mendacity and George Bush of incompetence. Ben further digressed trying to substantiate his conclusion by invoking what he called mislabeling of the "Clear Skies Initiative", further suggesting it did nothing of the kind, accompanied by links.

sbw: pointed out that the press can address spin and gave spinsanity.org as an example.

Ben: returned exhibiting his highest dudgeon demanding the press respond to Bush lying by naming a proposal "Clear Skies Initiative."

sbw: refused to follow that red herring, pointing out that Democrats mislabel with the best of them.

David: invoked a debating gimmick to ignore that Democrats mislabel with equal skill.

Ben: then maligned Bush ("philosophically mistaken about all policy and lies about nearly EVERY bill"). He continued. "Bush and Rove systematically govern through misrepresentation." Ben then claimed, "I gave you an iron-clad example that we could have had a detailed and informative discussion around concerning how the misrepresentations were handled by the press."

Iron-clad, Ben? Sorry. You argued about a policy name and I called you on it, to no avail. Then because I didn't care to pursue your gambit, you falsely conclude you were correct. Not so. Your gambit was illogical since it disregards completely what level of a chemical is socially, politically, scientifically and economically sensible.

You have no doubt. You assume mendacity and stupidity for that which you may disagree with or might not understand. That is to your disadvantage, because it cuts you off from other people's wisdom. There maay be mendacity or stupidity there sometimes, even often, but you are quick to assume it.

---

And MG, you're wrong. Doubt is not for the academic or the seminar room. Doubt is the counsel of practical experience. Our task is to get people to experience it sooner. I start with second graders on tour at the newspaper and expand on that with older kids.

Posted by: sbw at September 26, 2004 9:24 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the positive comments.

Tim raises a good point above on Kosovo. The stuff Bush is doing in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc. was made possible by the national security state instituted over the 20th century. The libertarian anti-war crowd have a good point in saying that this is part of a long term bi-partisan trend to greater state authority, and there really isn't an effective opposition to it in either party. The U.S. fought half a dozen major wars in the 20th century and the Vietnam war was the only point at which anti-war voices were able to get a mainstream hearing. One of the reasons why Vietnam still has such resonance in the public debate.

Gotta stop procrastinating now, but this is a nice site...thanks Jay!

Posted by: MQ at September 26, 2004 9:28 PM | Permalink

Jay, I get the impression you're hoping the CBS investigation spurs a wholesale bout of press self-examination ahead of the annual year-end confession-absolution ritual. It might, but I don't think the end result would be anything you would approve of. If there's one thing the industry is truly expert at, it's drawing the wrong conclusion from its missteps.

The Fourth Estate is withering. It's the victim of a self-imposed drought. I still think this was Rather's attempt to make amends for the self-censorship he described in his BBC interview. The end result of his density will be news operations even more timid than before, and the end result of that is, whichever political or extra-political organization with the best communications infrastructure wins.

Welcome to The Triumph of the Ill.

Posted by: weldon berger at September 26, 2004 9:51 PM | Permalink

For MQ, Ben F, and David E;

Grover's War Cry: The Democratic Party is Toast

The modern Democratic Party cannot survive the reelection of President George W. Bush and another four years of Republican control of both Congress and the White House.

No brag. Just fact.

Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 9:52 PM | Permalink

But that doesn't change my belief that the Democrats offer the policies that objectively serve the public better now.

So ultimately your view boils down to "Two legs bad. Four legs good." Have you ever examined this belief on any level? I notice the lack of any qualifiers whatsoever.

Watch out professor. Potential "fear of doubt" here.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 26, 2004 10:52 PM | Permalink

MC: Thanks. What you were saying makes more sense now.

Ernest: I know you weren't accusing me of anything more than linking. Apologies if I seemd to suggest otherwise. And I like your phrase: those "who demand more than demogoguery of the right or left."

Weldon: Thanks for that link to Rather's BBC interview, which I had seen quoted. He was bolder there than he dares to be here.

Eric D: Not everything I say in lamentation is about you, and my remarks about rootless cosmopolitans were not addressed to anyone in particular. I get called an ivory tower this or that about 20 times a month here. Glad to hear you're a cosmopolitan New Yorker, however.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 26, 2004 11:03 PM | Permalink

sbw,
let's see...you ignored the substantive points i raised with links and that means "you called me on it?"

When you ignore the argument, it doesn't make much sense does it?

I even stated I'd be glad to be rid of the Democratic party, but vou've still got me pegged in your closed binary mindset. Not much chance of complexity or new information entering in, is there?

"Clear skies" pretends to address pollution by trading pollution caps that are effectively meaningless, but even beyond that pathetic gesture toward pollution control, IT INVOLVES NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. Therefore it is a transparent pretense standing in for an actual pollution control policy.
Do you really believe this program lowers pollution? Voluntarily? By extending the deadlines fifteen years into the future? This is an astounding confession.

The day you actually discuss the contents of policy you can crow about rising above partisanship.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 26, 2004 11:30 PM | Permalink

Loved this one, because it will be such a shock to so many in the press. From the New York Times Magazine's lengthy piece, "Bloggers on the bus."

A pizza-stained paper plate sat between Moulitsas and Atrios. Together, they have more readers than The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Truly a sign of the times.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 27, 2004 12:03 AM | Permalink

More spinned against than spinners

'If you don't win the media battle, you don't win,' says Vanity Fair media columnist Michael Wolff. 'What's happened is that the media is the entire game. There is no political life outside of the media. Political consensus is created in the media, political careers are created in the media, and campaigns are won and lost in the media.'

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 12:06 AM | Permalink

It's "Truly a sign of the times" that the left-wing attack machine is taking over blogging. The switch from independent analysis to mindless rah-rah left-wing activism is truly disheartening.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 27, 2004 12:10 AM | Permalink

Tim,
This is because Bush and Rove have demonstrated the irrelevance of reality. It only takes Democrats a few election cycles and losing congress and the White House for them to take a hint about how the world works.

Murdoch-like media infrastructure or bust. Those are just the facts.

And why is it Gallop/New York Times is oversampling Republicans in their polls by five percent? That couldn't involve the media willfully distorting the democratic process during an election year? How could a Democrat think the media might be relevant?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 27, 2004 1:30 AM | Permalink

Ben: It only takes Democrats a few election cycles and losing congress and the White House for them to take a hint about how the world works.

ROTFLMAO.

As to the party ID of poll sampling, I have no idea ... or really care. But, if it helps your paranoia, it MUST be either an attempt to depress Democrats so they won't vote, or energize them so they will, or make Republicans over-confident so they won't vote or make them seem like winners so swing voters will vote for them.

Did I miss any conspiracy theories?

Mystery Pollster
Re: Oversampling the GOP

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 2:11 AM | Permalink

Ben: The day you actually discuss the contents of policy you can crow about rising above partisanship.

Let me see, he says riffling through the PressThink Charter, where does it say that participants are obliged to argue environmental policy, Karl Rove's history since the 1970s, or match hyperbolic Yorking with Ben...

Seems to me Jay's topic was "Does CBS News Have a Political Future in This State?"

Now, where was I...

Posted by: sbw at September 27, 2004 7:51 AM | Permalink

Weldon: The Fourth Estate is withering. It's the victim of a self-imposed drought.

Weldon, if the Fourth Estate is withering, why do you suppose it is so? What do you suppose the root causes are?

Posted by: sbw at September 27, 2004 8:02 AM | Permalink

What a thread, great ideas, sometimes mixed with a bit of trolling insults, and lots of responses from Jay, including a good thought that open minded people have "doubt".

I think, even more important than doubt, is a willingness to accept that some certain future facts can prove a chosen policy wrong.

I'd guess you were an anti-Vietnam war protester, thinking, like Kerry, that fighting in Vietnam was wrong. Preferring peace.
Peace, and commie victory, over more fighting, killing, dying.
Peace and genocide rather than fighting evil, when fighting evil includes killing some innocents.

Do you think Kerry, Rather, or any other famous anti-War protester has doubts about whether it was good or bad 1971 policy advice to ask for Peace Now?

The facts of the Killing Fields should have resulted in a consensus that staying and fighting was better, was morally superior, than leaving and letting evil commies win. Since 77 or so, the Vietnam debate should have been: we were doing a bad job at nation building, but we should have stayed to avoid the chaos of US leaving.

And the debate, then, should have been on how to do Vietnamization, the policy Nixon started but Kerry badmouthed (fairly accurately, I think). But that un-debate is very pertinent now, and it's terrible we don't have it. We don't have it because the PC Leftist press censored the debate, by assuming moral superiority with "Peace now" (never mind the genocide), and no questions. Vietnam? Nixon, Nixon, bad, bad, bad.

Of course, Kerry denied that commies were any more evil than US soldiers--and it is this equal-evil lie of Kerry, and other anti-War folk, which decreases the willingness to fight evil. Yes, My Lai happened; humans are fallible. Killing civilians wasn't the liberal Kennedy's, or liberal Johnson's policy; nor the conservative Nixon's policy. That some are confused about Vietnam being a "liberal" failure is indicative of a lack of education.

Kerry's Winter Soldier lie, for the "higher moral good" of policy change, is exactly similar to Rather's pushing fake documents for the higher moral good of changing an administration.

Please Jay, tell me whether you think the 1971 policy, or later, should have been Peace or War.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 27, 2004 10:18 AM | Permalink

Making CBS play fair

Years ago I was part of an odd panel discussion sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It was a flat-footed version of those role-playing dramas that Fred Friendly constructed so brilliantly for PBS, the ones where he would walk around the room posing hypothetical questions that often tied famous journalists up in ethical knots. I was assigned the role of a newspaper editor who had the option of running a political expose that would have had many wondrous effects on his town but that simply did not check out as true. I said I wouldn't run the story until my reporters nailed it down. This apparently unexpected position brought the whole poorly thought-out hypothetical to a screeching halt. No complex ethical dilemmas could be built on it. The Fred Friendly stand-in that day, assigned the role of badgering me to run the big story that didn't check out, was Dan Rather.

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 11:39 AM | Permalink

"Peace and genocide rather than fighting evil, when fighting evil includes killing some innocents."

That's right. We saved thousands of Iraqis from being slaughtered by Saddam by slaughtering them ourselves.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 27, 2004 11:49 AM | Permalink

"The facts of the Killing Fields should have resulted in a consensus that staying and fighting was better, was morally superior, than leaving and letting evil commies win."

The Killing Fields were in Cambodia, not Vietnam. It was a Vietnamese communist invasion that stopped the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s. The Vietnamese would probably have welcomed our help in doing it; we actually ended up funding the Khmer Rouge guerillas against them.

The NVA operated in Cambodia for many years with the tacit complicity of the Cambodian government. No genocide resulted. In the late 60s the U.S. decided to drive the NVA out of Cambodia. A coup against the neutral Cambodian government, massive U.S. bombing of the Cambodian peasant countryside, and eventually a U.S. invasion resulted. Many believe that it was the destablization of Cambodia stemming from this brutal U.S. intervention that eventually led to the disastrous Khmer genocide. Blaming the genocide on the U.S. leaving the area in the mid 70s is odd to say the least.

And plenty of evidence shows that the Winter Soldier stories were quite true. Unfortunately.

Posted by: MQ at September 27, 2004 12:24 PM | Permalink

Not that anyone should care, but I get all the US RDA-suggested rabid back-and-forth on Iraq elsewhere, and find these comment sections degenerating into really pointless Crossfire arguments (for god's sake give Vietnam a rest at least). It would be fun to see more comments on the press and less baiting between commenters on both sides about the talking point du jour. I could name the worst offenders but you know who you are, and if you don't, well, everyone else does.

Jay, did you think that NYT piece on weblogs was any good? I thought it was rather silly, perhaps a mild attempt to take the piss out of the featured bloggers (Cox' inclusion speaks volumes). Another example of the focus on personalities over ideas, and rampant generalizations (the idea that an important Kerry campaign official starts and ends his day reading weblogs is kind of sad).

Can the readership of a weblog (cue Finklestein) be compared to that of a metro paper? The comparison I would favor would be more like Rush Limbaugh's newsletter or some other narrowly focused partisan periodical. I'll bet he has a lot of readers. But readership doesn't equal influence or significance, as the writers for those soap opera digests at the checkout counter will tell you.

I'm also reminded of the American Spectator's boom during the 90s, getting up over 300,000 circulation which for a magazine of its stripe is pretty extraordinary. And then it all went away. Just like that. Could easily happen to any of the weblogs mentioned in the article.

Posted by: Brian at September 27, 2004 2:04 PM | Permalink

sbw:

Sloppiness, Fear, the urge toward serving as an amanuensis, and a lack of imagination, all compounded by institutional amnesia.

Other things too, but I'd say those are the ones that piss me off the most.

Posted by: weldon berger at September 27, 2004 2:06 PM | Permalink

Blog informercial...

PressThink Sep. 24:

For reasons not made clear at the time, Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, and Leslie Moonves, chairman of CBS Television and co-president of the CBS parent, Viacom, were allowed to define the scope of inquiry into events where they are implicated-- heavily so.

Los Angeles Times Sep. 25:

Whether or not Thornburgh is predisposed to blame Rather or CBS for the report, many inside the network nonetheless are questioning why Heyward was allowed to choose the panel along with CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves. Heyward, they argued, could just as well end up taking the blame for oversight procedures that might have gone wrong in the reporting of the story.

Small example of why people read blogs?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 27, 2004 3:10 PM | Permalink

Another administration example:

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. (emphasis added)

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 4:31 PM | Permalink

Brian: "But readership doesn't equal influence or significance, as the writers for those soap opera digests at the checkout counter will tell you."

But ... but ... so many people watch soap operas! Surely this means the operasphere is a force to be reckoned-with, and "soapers" are the revolutionary vanguard of culture. Does CBS News have anyone watching soap-operas (for their job, that is ...)

No?

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 27, 2004 4:57 PM | Permalink

Greenfield on Imus today, on Rathergate and how
blogs overturned CBS in 12 hours

http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/imuscut.greenfield3.ram
Instapundit and others are mentioned.

Previous Greenfield on the Tailwind screwup on CNN is at

Apology on Imus ca. July 14, 1998 (date on the .ra file)
http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/tailwind2.ram

The original promo he did on Imus was two weeks earlier and is at (ca. July 2, 1998)
http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/tailwind1.ram

Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 27, 2004 7:49 PM | Permalink

I knew you'd come shining through. Are you finally abandoning the "weblog traffic is numerically insignificant" basis for viewing weblogs as uninfluential?

Posted by: Brian at September 27, 2004 9:08 PM | Permalink

The Age of Uncertainty

Remember, it was incredible distrust of the government's handling of "domestic terror threats" in the mid-1990s -- Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Waco -- that, combined with the sudden appearance of the Internet in a third of American homes, fueled the right-leaning Americans' distrust of Big Media. Politically active left-leaning Americans broke with Official Media Reality during the Vietnam Era 25 years earlier. When you watch your political heroes murdered by "lone nuts" one after another and student protesters gunned down by the National Guard as a mysterious war claims the lives of your friends and brothers, it's unlikely you'll ever entirely connect with Official Media Reality again.

(and Ben, don't miss this link)

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 9:26 PM | Permalink

Sigh ... shows what I get for being tongue-in-cheek.

Rough approximations are rough approximations.

The President's Daily Briefing is read by one person, but it's influential. A random blog read by one random person is not influential.

But - gasp - *in each case it's got a readship of one!*

So oh my god, how could we ever tell the difference between the influence of the Presidential Daily Briefing and a teenage girl's diary, since we've just seen, shocking, that a readership of one spans the entire influence spectrum.

Sorry, this really shouldn't be the level of analysis.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 27, 2004 10:02 PM | Permalink

Not wanting to get on topic, if that's what I'm about to do, or anything, but I have a question.
Rosen asks if CBS has a political future. How does a broadcast network have a political future?
What on earth does that question mean unless you presume it was already a kind of advertiser-supported 527 for democrats?
Is the question whether it will continue to shill for democrats?
If that isn't the question, where is the reason to ask if a broadcast network has a political future?
CBS can have a profitable future. It can have a bankruptcy in its future. It can have a future as a standing joke.
But how does it have a political future?

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 27, 2004 10:16 PM | Permalink

sbw: Weldon, if the Fourth Estate is withering, ... what do you suppose the root causes are?
Weldon: Sloppiness, Fear, the urge toward serving as an amanuensis, and a lack of imagination, all compounded by institutional amnesia.

Weldon, Thanks. Since those are internal. Do you believe there are external causes, too? What do think the expectations of the audience are? How about their skill set?

Posted by: sbw at September 27, 2004 10:27 PM | Permalink

Jay quotes "Bruce Benidt in the Star Tribune:60 Minutes and its spinoffs and imitators have reveled so long in their 'gotcha' approach that they've crossed from journalism through entertainment and into pandering."

Right to the heart of the matter. Not right. Not left... For a long time, simply not news.

Posted by: sbw at September 27, 2004 10:31 PM | Permalink

sbw,
If you don't know or care enough about environmental policy to recognize that a pollution increase proposal called the "Clear Skies Initiative" with no enforcement mechanism is a scam, that is a media problem because you are failing your readers as an editor.

You have clearly established that if I ask, "Why and how does the mainstream media enable Bush's systematic misrepresentation of his policies?" And you edit it down to, "Why does Bush misrepresent his policies?" Voila! It no longer has anything to do with the thread topic of media. Very impressive.

Calling Bush a serial liar is no more maligning him than calling Tony Soprano a mobster. It's what he does. A brief perusal of the 9/11 commission report establishes that. "Saddam had no ongoing relationship to al Quaeda." Bush and Cheney continue to repeat this false mantra ad nauseum. These are facts established by a congressional commission so your personal opinion about them isn't of much relevance. It's touching that you feel such a responsibility to defend our hopeless leader, though.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 27, 2004 11:02 PM | Permalink

Tim,
While it would surprise me, it is also possible that there is a reasonable justification for why most of the major polls are systematically oversampling Republicans and undersampling Democrats by 5-6% as compared to election returns for the last three presidential elections. I raised this question in all seriousness last week, but noone responded. It strikes me as a very real and serious question directly related to where the systematic advantages of the respective parties may lie. It looks suspicious to me but I'm quite open to persuasion on this one.
Ruy Texeira was one of the bloggers raising questions. He does seem to have some considerable expertise in polls and sampling.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 27, 2004 11:12 PM | Permalink

Richard Aubrey: How does a broadcast network have a political future? ... 527 ... shill ... democrats ...

Jay: [CBS] had to fight a war for legitimacy and reputation, and that's a political struggle ....

Bob Steele: It is possible that the choice of Dick Thornburgh sends a signal to Republicans in terms of the desire by CBS to have legitimacy with this review panel

Jay: Victoria Toensing told Kurtz that Thornburgh is a good choice for CBS "because he's a Republican, so it doesn't look partisan the wrong way."

Tim: Thornburgh is not there to balance Boccardi, who is being sold as neutral, but to balance the perception of CBS' political bias. It's a tacit recognition, if not an admission, that their critics and the public (according to polls) hold the "liberal bias" opinion. Thornburgh is there to balance that opinion, buttressed by the Barnes/Burkett/Cleland/Mapes/Lockhart connections.

So, the answer seems to be that CBS News will be less of a shill for democrats, postponing critical gotcha'tainment snark until after the election and being on their best behavior until the investigation is complete.

The question remains how long until they're back to their game.

Watchdog journalism is political. Partisan muckraking is yellow dog journalism.

VDH: The Big Three may deride the newsreaders at Fox as blond bimbos, but millions of Americans learned long ago that there are probably more liberals on Fox than conservatives on PBS, NPR, CBS, ABC, and NBC combined — and the former are honest about politics in a way the latter are not.

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 11:14 PM | Permalink

Tim,
I think your link to Clinton is a red herring as it relates to Bush using force since Clinton didn't kick out inspectors so he could invade. But you do raise a very legitimate question regarding his responsibility for death and destruction in Iraq. He has to bear significant responsibility for the deaths of the 500,000 children who died during the embargo as a result of the game of chicken between Saddam, Bush I, and Clinton through most of the 90s. He knew what the consequences were and he stuck with the policy. The Bush invasion is piling more corpses on top of that pile, but if partisan ship is the sole concern, up to this point we can certainly point to a bigger pile as the result of collaboration between Saddam and Clinton.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 27, 2004 11:19 PM | Permalink

John Moore:

Do we really believe there are only a few people in this country of 300,000,000 with the ability to be a Dan Rather? I'm sure Dan Rather thinks he is special, but I see Dan Rather as no different from Tide laundry soap: he is a brand, and as such, doesn't have any special insight into the world or greater logical abilities or intelligence than the rest of us. I am not interested in being lectured on how I should think by a Tide soap box. Likewise, I really resent it when a Feminine Hygiene Brand like Ted Koppel does it.

Regular Folks Know a Lot

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2004 11:57 PM | Permalink

Tim,
Do we really need John Moore to tell us that network news anchors are branded products? The homophobic swipe at Ted Koppel is a nice flourish. Leave it to John to capture that in his special way. Please try not to encourage him.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 12:15 AM | Permalink

I think we may be in agreement but I can only guess, being too thick to discern all the sublime subtleties of your wit. Before you were stating that the fact that a small percentage of Internet users read weblogs was proof of something, now you seem to be saying that weblog readers are typified by teenage girls, which I would agree would make them pretty uninteresting. I wonder if politicians, reporters, lawyers, professors, et al read weblogs as well and if they fit the teenage girl mold of utterly useless people with inconsequential views of the world.

I guess what I'm asking is, what is your point?

Posted by: Brian at September 28, 2004 12:17 AM | Permalink

Ben, you don't need anyone to tell you anything. You've often made that quite clear. But it was refreshing to read that retro PC liberalism that can find in any statement some outrage of homophobia, sexism, racism, ..., in order to attack the messenger.

Next, someone will be telling me not to encourage you.

Oh, well. You're such a douchebag, probably a Tampax.

Posted by: Tim at September 28, 2004 12:49 AM | Permalink

Reuters Takes On Bush's Truth-Challenged Iraq Talk

Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute
(Crawford, Texas) Many of President Bush's assertions about progress in Iraq--from police training and reconstruction to preparations for January elections--are in dispute, according to internal Pentagon documents, lawmakers, and key congressional aides on Sunday...
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AGPY4CUYUOCLQCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6334619

Aside from Bush staying true to form, I think there is a larger media issue here: the timidity of the domestic press has led a substantial segment of the non-Republican, non-chauvinist readership to go offshore, especially to British papers since it was so hard to get simple facts out of US press coverage for months after the march to war in Iraq. This is a desertion of the US press by the left that may be every bit as serious as the rebellion against the MSM by the Republicans. The audience really is open to suggestions and US sources that can't get the job done simply get kicked off the list. That is a pretty long list and it grows by the day.

Why can't a US paper manage to hire Greg Palast?

Tim,
I love you man!

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 1:18 AM | Permalink

Anyone have thoughts to share about Billmon's piece in the LA Times generally slagging the blogosphere for selling out and getting coopted by The Man?

It sounds very retro to me, though we surely are in the midst of a spasm of mainstreaming. This may be the lamest Billmon piece I've ever read. I hope it's nothing serious.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 1:27 AM | Permalink

CIA rattled by Bush Prevarication

Is CIA at war with Bush? Robert Novak
A few hours after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as "just guessing," the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the President of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.

Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia sat down Tuesday night in a large West Coast city with a select group of private citizens. He was not talking off the cuff. Relying on a multi-paged, single-spaced memorandum, Pillar said he and his colleagues concluded early in the Bush administration that military intervention in Iraq would intensify anti-American hostility throughout Islam. This was not from a CIA retiree, but an active senior official...

www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

This story raises two issues I'd like to see more press coverage of. First, much of what the right has preferred to see as adversarial, anti-Republican criticism of the Bush colonization of Iraq has actually been spoon-fed to reporters by angry CIA and State Department officials appalled by willful administration ignorance and incompetence. Thus, government in-fighting between intelligence professionals and neo-conservative partisans has frequently been mistaken by the right and the mainstream media for a two-sided partisan political tug-of-war (with Karl Rove's encouragement and blessing). As Richard Clark demonstrates, most of these guys scapegoated by the administration are Republicans.

Secondly, given this open rift between different branches of our government, isn't it time to retire the "conspiracy theory" charge which Republican correctness uses to try to distract you from what's in front of you? We have a major legitimation crisis in this administration.

It's about time the press started covering the story as a policy professional vs. Bush Republican dispute rather than with the nonsensical Republican-Democrat story line they've generally followed so far. It's basically the CIA vs. the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century. Where is that story line?

This is not a Republican vs. Democrat story. The Kissinger-Scowcroft Republicans are just as appalled as the CIA. Many of the disaffected CIA folks probably ARE Kissinger-Scowcroft Republicans.

CBS has stated it is too busy doing ideological penance to the Republican party to touch the truth as it affects the future of the country before the election. We won't see this on PBS two or three years after it doesn't matter anymore.

Is it so crazy to imagine a responsible media that seriously cared about the future of the country and an informed populace would be on this BEFORE the election? And would at least periodically filter the disinformation that has blocked it out for two years now?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 4:34 AM | Permalink

"Anyone have thoughts to share about Billmon's piece in the LA Times generally slagging the blogosphere for selling out and getting coopted by The Man?"

I thought he raised some valid points. Many bloggers, no matter their rhetoric about 'Big Media', clearly had strong desires of being accepted by the 'Old Guard' media they allegedly scoffed at and were trying to circumvent. At least as it relates to left of center bloggers.

Posted by: Epitome at September 28, 2004 5:23 AM | Permalink

Ben: Calling Bush a serial liar is no more maligning him than calling Tony Soprano a mobster. It's what he does.

Having participated in Senator Tom Daschle sessions, I am awed by his ability to misrepresent with such facility, such ease, and such cherubic innocence. Bush cannot hold a candle to such skill. Daschle's impact on Congress is far more than Bush ever thought of having. Yet, Ben, I do not see you presenting chapter and verse against Daschle, perhaps because you believe his goals to be just and any means to get there is fine with you. When I read your comments, they come across to me as simplistic partisan attacks and are accorded appropriate credibility.

You have a hard time seeing this and prefer to blame the press. I don't. I have pointed out that our newspaper is equal opportunity when it comes down to pointing out egregious spin. If anything, spinsanity.org tends to expose the Bush side more than the Dems.

You are obviously welcome to go on as you are, but if you want to positively affect this particular audience -- I mean me, the other readers obviously speak for themselves -- you will have to find a more constructive and illuminating way to do so. You violate the sympathetic contract - you can't convince people you alienate.

Posted by: sbw at September 28, 2004 8:50 AM | Permalink

sbw,
I'll take your word for Tom Daschle's cherubic skills of misrepresentation. I stated in a previous post that I think Daschle is corrupt. I even think the Democrats would be better off without him.

I applaud your decision to run the Spinsanity feature in your paper. I just wonder that such an approach doesn't figure more centrally in the editing process itself. Why should reality checking be confined to one column in a paper? Especially if BOTH parties are lying as you seem determined to insist. Doesn't that argue even more strongly for expanding the Spinsanity model to every column inch available? Without that treatment, it's not news, its disinformation, and the public is not informed, but is disinformed by its dissemination. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I still wonder at your ability to only see the world in binary party terms. It is possible to detest both parties and still think Bush is a menace. I'm less terrified of the Democrats, but I'd prefer a Green Party candidate who was competitive. When Richard Clark declared that the entire invasion of Iraq was a wrongheaded catastrophe and a misrepresentation of the intelligence, was that a partisan smear? Do we really need to find a Democratic lie to balance out Richard Clark's critique of the administration?

To my mind, one of the core fallacies of US press coverage of politics is this dogmatically two party frame for all world events. Why not call a lie a lie for either party and let the chips fall where they may? Yoking them together distorts the truth as often as it clarifies it. To me, this confuses ethics with two party relativism. Two party relativism is determined before the fact to be equitably critical, regardless of developments in the real world. It's like an ethical quota system, or a grading curve. You know the results going in. That precludes the possibility of letting actual developments be what determines the seriousness of the critique.

But I'm sincerely curious to hear why you think Bush's impact on the Senate can't compare to Daschle's. When was the last time Democratic sponsored legislation was even put up for a vote as written, let alone enacted? When was the last time non-yellow dog Democrats were invited to a conference committee meeting and actually had any input? How does this influence manifest itself if not in legislation? They stalled the disastrous energy bill for a year, but it's coming back. Are you referring to Senate confirmation hearings? If that's where his clout is, I'd say that's pretty small potatoes in the midst of a one party Republican policy wonderland that has produced more cronyism than conservative policy for two years. Isn't "more influence than Bush ever imagined" overreaching by quite a lot?

You are an editor and I'm not, so I'm curious to hear how you arrive at that conclusion, to hear the thinking behind your news judgment on this.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 11:27 AM | Permalink

Paul Krugman has an interesting column in the NY Times today on debate coverage during the last election cycle. He argues that cable news is a lost cause and will declare Bush the winner regardless, but that in the print media it is a question of "drama criticism" vs. "policy fact-checking." Since Bush consistently tells so many whoppers and is a pretty good actor, drama criticism favors Bush, policy fact-checking favors his opponent.

How did drama criticism become the central approach to covering debates? Is this the pretense of reading the popular mind from body language? What's the rationale there? Why does policy fact-checking seem to be the unpopular kid at the media party when it comes to debates?

Any predictions on how coverage of Thursday night will be framed?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 11:47 AM | Permalink

Instapundit is pointing to Rather's ratings collapse. Peculiarly, it reminds me of O.J. Simpson.

With O.J., "Jury Nullification" became a household word. Swift Boat Vets, Christmas in Cambodia, Bush's National Guard service -- all might be candidates for "Readership Nullification." Readership nullification happens when the public votes with its eyeballs and feet saying, "I don't give a flip about this issue, drop it, get on with it, or I'll leave."

When the public tunes out an issue, it really doesn't matter whether that issue is valid. In other words, "60 Minutes" not only screwed itself by being taken in by what seem to be bogus documents, it may have screwed itself by pursuing something discounted by readers.

As the numbers above indicate, by persisting in that pursuit, "60 Minutes" might have taken one giant step towards "60 Minutes" or "Dan Rather" nullification. Brand nullification.

The brand, built painstakingly over the years, has had its usefulness severely tarnished. It doesn't have to happen. In 1982, "Tylenol" Crisis people were murdered by tainted Tylenol capsules, but Johnson & Johnson brought the brand back.

I asked Weldon about external factors helping current press wither. Do you suppose one contribution might be caused by reader and viewer nullification?

Posted by: sbw at September 28, 2004 12:01 PM | Permalink

Ben: [G]overnment in-fighting between intelligence professionals and neo-conservative partisans has frequently been mistaken by the right and the mainstream media for a two-sided partisan political tug-of-war (with Karl Rove's encouragement and blessing).... It's about time the press started covering the story as a policy professional vs. Bush Republican dispute rather than with the nonsensical Republican-Democrat story line they've generally followed so far. It's basically the CIA vs. the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century. Where is that story line?

I think there are actually five US policy worldviews motivating much of the statecraft tension and leaks.

Cheney/Wolfowitz/Ledeen
Powell/Scowcroft/McCain
Albright/Holbrooke/Joe Wilson
Jimmy Carter/Andrew Young
Buckley/Buchanan/Novak

Intelligence professionals and technocrats make assessments, predictions and policy recommendations based on how they perceive the worldviews of others, trends, and current events.

I agree with you that pressthink reductivism into 2-sided he said/she said party partisanship omits the multifaceted post-Cold War, post-9/11 struggle over doctrine. I disagree with you that the press should adopt a different 2-sided he said/she said reductivist storyline to explain the competing political forces in the federal bureaucracy.

In other words, I think you're criticism is valid - and important - but reductivist and partisan in its own way.

The other important consideration in a CIA leak is the beating (fairly or unfairly) that the CIA has taken.

Posted by: Tim at September 28, 2004 12:13 PM | Permalink

sbw,

I think Reader Nullification is a useful way to think about the public distrust and disillusionment with brand name information providers.

It puts the onus on the providers rather than on the public, which is correct. I think there is more to Reader Nullification than just issue selection. It is also issue presentation (gotcha!tainment and conflict drama).

Why is this issue useful to me? Was it presented in a useful way? What can I do with this information?

If you disagree with the usefulness of the issue, feel dissatisfied with how it was presented, and/or are left wondering what you are supposed to do about it - you roll your eyes, shake your head and don't come back.

Posted by: Tim at September 28, 2004 12:55 PM | Permalink

[Off Topic] Ben: I'm less terrified of the Democrats...

[Similarly off topic.. and I'll not take more than a line or two here] And I'm much more terrified of Democrats and their terrible cost and consequences because they try to implement laudable goals with bad policy, oblivious to what damage they've done and do along the way.

[On topic] But that does NOT make it to our news pages. It was only recently, after thirty years working together, that I found out our editor was of a different political party. Quality substance knows no party line.

Posted by: sbw at September 28, 2004 1:10 PM | Permalink

Tim,
Good post. I'd like to hear more. I'm sure we'll disagree on the merits, but it sounds like you have a very impressive command of the players. How do you map them? What is your five party story line? How much of it do you think has made it into coverage?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 28, 2004 2:25 PM | Permalink

sbw ...

I think readers/viewers have an impact, but mostly on the presentation of news. Newspapers are fighting for a diminishing market share and television and cable news are contesting on a very crowded field. So they do their little focus groups to see what people want, and that's how they present the news.

The actual gathering of news is a different story. No one forces the cable outlets to run insubstantial or inaccurate crap and repeat it incessantly for 24 hours or more. They just do it because the other guy is doing it. They've forgotten how to compete. Instead of offering a different and better product, they're offering one distinguished only by the brand name.

And no one forces newspapers to do bad work. No one forced Jeff Gerth at the Times to get his Wen Ho Lee pieces largely wrong. No one forced Judith Miller to suspend her reportorial judgement on the stuff she was getting from the White House and the Pentagon before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. No one forces anyone to pick up unconfirmed items from Drudge, or to ignore solid items from AP, from overseas wire agencies and from smaller news organizations.

In other words, I think the news outlets are responding in large part to the unease they've created in their audiences, and they're responding by making themselves worse. People don't especially trust Fox News; they've just decided that if they're going to get bullshit spoonfed them by the press, it might as well be a flavor they like. It's like choosing which shaky-cam cop show you want to watch.

That isn't to say that the requirements of the audiences haven't changed over the years; just that the quality of reporting and presentation were not doomed to suffer from attempting to meet the new requirements or from increased competition. The press have done that to themselves. Knight Ridder, operating with a very small pool of investigative reporters, has consistently scooped or out-reported its much larger and better funded rivals on a number of fronts, Iraq most notably, but others as well. So it's possible to do good work and make a buck.

All of which is to say that it isn't the external pressures that have hurt the press so much as the way they've responded to the pressures.

Posted by: weldon berger at September 28, 2004 3:58 PM | Permalink

People don't especially trust Fox News;

People? What People? Cites? Figures? Data?

I mean, I know the in-crowd around here don't like it none too much, but who, aside from those in your immediate professional/political/social/cultural circle, are these "people" that don't "trust" Fox News?

Because, you see, it occurs to me that, as far as I know, Fox News has never had any significant journalistic scandal of the Dan Rather/Jayson Blair/Monkeyfishing/Jack Kelley/Rick Bragg/Stephen Glass/Janet Cooke/Tailwind/Andrew Gilligan level, whereas virtually every MSM outlet has had one. (I realize that Fox is newer than most of them.)

And, if you look at a percentage basis, the records for getting things right of Drudge and the National Enquirer have to be close to MSM levels if not better.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 28, 2004 4:47 PM | Permalink

Ben: How do you map them?

neocon
Realpolitik
Wilsonian
Human Rights/Peace & Justice
paleocon

What is your five party story line?

The Bush administration took over from the Wilsonians promising paleocon-friendly Realpolitik, but adopted the neocon worldview after 9/11. Coalitions changed membership from 9/11 thru Afghanistan to the 2002 elections/Iraq War and into the 2003/2004 primary season.

How much of it do you think has made it into coverage?

From a foreign policy view, it has been a series of 2-sided narratives. The coverage of the first 8 months of the administration dramatized anecdotes of paleo-isolationist pullbacks from the Wilsonianism of the previous administration.

Immediately after 9/11, the contrast was between the neocons and HR/P&J crowd. I think the press perceived a coalition between the neocons, Realpolitikers and Wilsonians on Afghanistan but gave little attention to the paleocons.

Going into the 2002 elections and Iraq war debate, the coverage dramatized conflict between neocons and the Realpolitikers. The Wilsonians were split on Iraq and the paleocons had joined the HR/P&J crowd. Except for Jimmy's Nobel and the anti-war demonstrations, the coverage of the paleo-HR/P&J coalition had a paparazzi veneer - at least until the 2003/2004 primary season.

By the Fall of 2003, the coverage shifted to the contrast between Wilsonians and neocons. Dean's HR/P&J backlash was a story unto itself, even briefly courting Jimmy for a last ditch attempt to shore up his bona fides. But it was mostly a one-sided "phenom" story rather than a serious foreign policy movement.

At least that's how I remember it.

Posted by: Tim at September 28, 2004 5:32 PM | Permalink

"And, if you look at a percentage basis, the records for getting things right of Drudge and the National Enquirer have to be close to MSM levels if not better."

Cites? Sources? Figures? Data?

Posted by: Epitome at September 28, 2004 8:29 PM | Permalink

CBS Uses Phony Documents to Promote Draft Hoax

Three weeks after he denounced the internet as being "filled with rumors," the embattled CBS anchor ran a story on his Tuesday "Evening News" program hoping to stir up fear of an impending military draft.

In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly "Evening" viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.

At the center of Schlesinger's piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is "sick to my stomach" that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future.

Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal proscription, seeks to establish a "peaceful, rational foreign policy" by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger's Cocco, the group portrays itself as "nonpartisan"although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans.

Top Producer on Forged Memo Story Worked for Liberal Democrats

Josh Howard, the Executive Producer of the Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes, served on the staff of current Senator Charles Schumer when Schumer was in the state legislature, moved on to the staff of former New York Congressman Steven Solarz and later, while on the CBS News payroll, made large contributions to the Solarz campaign, Bob Novak revealed in his weekend compilation column.

Posted by: Tim at September 28, 2004 11:07 PM | Permalink

AN INDEPENDENT TRUTH COMMISSION
Let's See Some Logs

I am reminded of some excellent advice to a President Kerry, as he works to bring fiscal sanity back into government...

Create a 9/11 type commission whose task is that of creating non-partisan, constructive solutions to the financial shock and awe he will inherit.
It may be the only way to keep the country from flip-flopping between one half-measure and another half-measure.

Similarly, CBS may opt to carpe the diem, go whole hog truth, examine themselves and FOX, NBC, CNN, CBN and every other television news organ. But do it by creating a commission of spotlessly impartial sages whose entire lives have been guided by a search for truth. (Seek outside the box.)

It is like Harry Beckwith once said (and I paraphrase.): Turn a disgruntled customer into a loyal customer...by not only righting the wrong, but also by going way beyond, in order that the customer winds up far better than he started.

Don't just can Dan . Rather you shoot yourself in the foot by doing that to a legend like Mr. Rather...who is right there, among the pantheon of Murrow, Cronkhite, Schorr...and who was the broken heart of America after 911...lest we forget.

If you can commit to the truth, all and nothing but the truth...and produce...you will have a virtual monopoly on truthseeking eyeballs. (Forgive my apostrophizing.)

Don't just fix what's bad. Improve on what's good and true.

The mote in CBSs eye is nothing compared to the logs in the eyes of nearly all the others.

Let's see some logs.

-Anonymoses

Posted by: Anonymoses Hyperlincoln at September 28, 2004 11:20 PM | Permalink

Time for Journalists to Hold Their Own Accountable: "Why not apply the same level of scrutiny to media companies that journalists have applied to recent scandals in American corporations and the Catholic Church?"

Posted by: Tim at October 9, 2004 9:40 PM | Permalink

CBS and The New York Times are guilty of Yellow Journalism if not aideing and abetting the enemy. Maybe the story of the missing explosives is grounds for the removal of their broadcast liscens and criminal charges for manipulating a national election during wartime. This heinous activity is a crime against all Americans, and energizingto to the enemies.

This is the imputas we need to pull this country together and join together as Democrats and Republicans to stop the medias natural tendency to manipulate the vote towards the left.

Democrats should be equally outraged since this has become a major blow not to Bush, but to Kerry who tried apply the old school tactic of tell the a lie enouth times and (because the press will report it) it will become factual. The New Youk Times and the Los Angelas Times, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN will back the lamest lie for there canidate. This must stop. Sanctions against them if fail to police them selves.

Riley

Posted by: Jeff Riley at October 27, 2004 6:55 PM | Permalink