Posted on 09/20/2004 11:00:55 AM PDT by RedDaring
Posted on Mon, Sep. 20, 2004 Text of statements by CBS News President Andrew Heyward and anchor Dan Rather
Associated Press
Statement by CBS News President Andrew Heyward and Dan Rather about the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service:
Heyward:
"60 Minutes Wednesday" had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired.
However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents' authenticity. That included an interview featured on last week's edition of "60 Minutes Wednesday" with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight; and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate.
Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust."
CBS News and CBS management are commissioning an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken. The names of the people conducting the review will be announced shortly, and their findings will be made public.
Rather:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question - and their source - vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where - if I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
To put it bluntly CBS did know then what they do now. They just chose to ignore it. They are still lying bastards.
this is pathetic!
It ain't gonna fly. CBS you are going down.
repeats already posted
He owes our pajammas an apology...
Hey Dan where is your hard hitting report on the Swift Boat Vets charges?
Translation: We still think Bush is an AWOL doodyhead, we just can't prove it. "Fake but accurate."
Unless there is a direct and sincere apology to the CBS viewing audience, and especially to President Bush, this is meaningless spin. Heads need to roll as well...force Rather into early retirement, fire Mary Mapes and anyone else involved in the "chain of custody" of those documents at CBS, and release all details of where CBS got them from.
Non-apology apology NOT accepted, SeeBS.
}:-)4
Not when you consider the next paragraph:
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Notice its the peoples' trust he craves, not in actually being fair and truthful.
yeah, but where is the apology to Pres. Bush? This story was so sloppy, so dependant on Democrat political hacks - it had no business even being considered for airing UNLESS, the letters where absolutely genuine. This CBS statement is crap!
hey CBS, what about the R-Word --RETRACTION, YOU F##KING IDIOTS!!!!
Rush Limbaugh is making the point that if, in fact, CBS was "duped", they would be angry. Anger is totally missing from their PR statements.
He owes the President an apology!
Hey Dan where is your hard hitting report on the Swift Boat Vets charges?Well, see, that would show both fear -- of a Kerry defeat -- and favoritism -- for a Bush victory. Y'know, because the Swifties are telling the truth.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
This is a complete red herring. There is parsing here worthy of Clinton.
The real issue is; "Who gave the forged documents to CBS. It was NOT Burkett.
Burkett has previously posted that he called Max Cleland and Cleland put him in touch with Kerry campaign. Burkett complained about having to go through "7 layers of bureauocracy" to get to someon in authority in Kerry campaign.
CBS is telling truth when they say they did not get docs from Burkett. They got them from Kerry campaign. Why did Rather fly to Dallas to interview Burkett is CBS didn't get docs from Burkett? Because Kerry campaign said they got docs from Burkett!
Who in Kerry campaign? Who came on to Kerry staff just before docs made their way to CBS? Carvile and Lockhart.
Could they do this?
Yes.
Would they do this?
Yes.
Of course, to Rather, Carvile or Lackhart are "unimpeachable sources."
CBS is falling on sword so they won't have to admit forged docs came from Kerry people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.