CBS betrays its blood lust for Bush [Forged memo's, a non-apology and a faux investigation]

The independent panel that investigated CBS News' botched report on President Bush's National Guard service spent an exhaustive four months on the job, interviewing 62 witnesses and reviewing thousands of pages of scripts, notes, e-mails, military records and press releases. Unfortunately, it seems to have neglected to read its own report -- otherwise, it would never have concluded that political bias played no role in the fiasco.

The evidence that reporters and producers working for CBS desperately wanted to land a knockout punch on the president's reelection campaign is right there in the panel's own 224-page review of how the Bush story went so grotesquely wrong. They wanted it so much that they ignored evidence that their story was wrong, not only in its details but also in its fundamental assumptions. They wanted it so much that they slandered anyone who challenged them and plotted a book deal for a key source. They wanted it so much that they lied on the air and in their press releases. And they wanted it so much that even now, when the story has been disproved as a tissue of fictions and falsehoods, they continue to insist it's true. The most stunning single disclosure in the report may be that Dan Rather told the panel his on-air apology for the Bush story last September was phony, a sop to his bosses. Rather told the panel that he believes in the story to this very day: ``The facts are right on the money.''

Before Rather is allowed to report another story for CBS, his bosses need to ask him: What facts? The story was based on a lead source who later admitted he lied and documents that are forged. It had no facts -- only the fervent wishes of a bunch of reporters intent on derailing Bush. As the independent panel's report makes clear, Mary Mapes, the story's producer and one of four CBS staffers fired over the incident, had been trying to nail Bush clear back in the days when he was governor of Texas. For five years she had been chasing a story that he used political influence to bully his way into the Texas Air National Guard back in the 1960s and avoid serving in the Vietnam War. The very premise of the story was questionable, a fact made clear in Mapes' 1999 e-mail to other CBS producers: The National Guard squad to which Bush applied had 20 vacancies. Her own notes show that the commander told her he was ''hurting for pilots.'' And one former Guardsman Mapes approached told her that during his service Bush actually volunteered for fighter-pilot duty in Vietnam but was turned down because the war was winding down.

But the panel's report indicates that didn't stop Mapes (and Rather, who received similar information in interviews in 1999) from pursuing the story for another five years. Their efforts heated up in 2004 as the election approached.

Mapes, on the advice of the managers of several anti-Bush websites, approached a former Guardsman named Bill Burkett. Burkett, who blamed Bush for blocking his attempt to collect medical disability payments from the National Guard, had a long history of making extravagant accusations against the president to the media, then quickly retracting them when they came under scrutiny. Other CBS reporters who dealt with Burkett called him ''unreliable,'' the report says. But when Burkett hinted that he had documents questioning Bush's performance in the National Guard and alleging that Bush was protected by political influence, Mapes jumped on it. By now, she had three freelance reporters working on the story, plus Rather when it was time to do on-camera interviews. ''Do NOT underestimate how much I want this story,'' she told one of the reporters in an e-mail.

How much? Enough to consider dangling a book contract in front of Burkett to get the documents. Mapes responded positively to an e-mail from a freelancer on the story, Michael Smith, that described how they could present the parameters of a book deal to Burkett ``to help get us the information.'' Smith said he was going to talk to an editor he knew at a publishing house and ask him: ``What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election . . . What I am asking is in this best-case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent-sized advance payment, and get it turned around quickly.'' That way, Smith continued, ``when we get to Burkett's house, I will have at least some scenarios to show Burkett about what could happen if he played ball with the documents. If he shows us what we want, then I can call my friend and tell him the real details and start the process.''

Mapes liked the idea, as she replied in an e-mail: ``That looks good, hypothetically speaking of course.'' As it turned out, the book deal wasn't necessary. Instead, Mapes agreed to something that made her political agenda even more obvious: She put a senior official in the John Kerry campaign in touch with Burkett, who wanted to assist the Democratic presidential nominee with strategy. The official, Joe Lockhart, said Mapes told him that Burkett would give her documents only if Lockhart would call him. Lockhart made the call, but decided ''15 seconds into the conversation'' that Burkett couldn't be trusted. Unfortunately, Mapes was less perceptive. When Burkett did finally turn over the documents, she didn't inquire too closely about where they came from. And there was much to question: Supposedly, they were written by Bush's Air National Guard commander, now dead, for a secret personal file. And, further supposedly, another officer had somehow obtained them and given them to Burkett. That's a long chain of supposedlys, but Mapes made no effort to clear it up by getting in touch with the officer who Burkett said had given him the documents.

By now, any attempt to question the story was ruthlessly turned aside. Mapes called in four experts to authenticate the documents. When two said they suspected forgery, Mapes dismissed them as ''flaky,'' the report says. (Later, when they told other reporters that CBS had dismissed their concerns, Mapes had the network issue a press release denouncing them as liars.) The other two experts said only that they believed the signatures on the documents were authentic -- and they weren't even certain of that, since they were working with photocopies rather than original documents.

That didn't stop CBS from putting the story on the air. Within hours it was falling apart. Internet diarists noted that the documents used typography that wasn't available in 1972; that they didn't follow the same format as other Texas Air National Guard documents; that they misused military jargon. The wife and son of the National Guard officer who had allegedly signed the documents denounced them as fakes. Another officer who CBS claimed had vouched for the documents said the network had never actually showed them to him -- and now that he'd seen them, he, too, was sure they were phony.

The final blow came when Burkett, the original source for the documents, admitted that he had lied to CBS about where he got them. Rather than coming from another National Guard officer, Burkett said, they were handed to him by a stranger at a Houston livestock show. Twelve days later, CBS retracted the story, told Rather to apologize on-air and commissioned the independent panel to investigate. The panel's report contains every twisted detail of how the story went off-track, including much more than there's room to describe here. Yet it concludes that no political bias was involved. Why? Because Rather and Mapes solemnly swear it. Rather, asked if he had any political biases, not surprisingly replied: ''Absolutely, unequivocally untrue.'' And Mapes said her pursuit of the story was motivated ''by proximity, not politics'' -- that is, she spent five years on it just because she happened to live in Texas.

So CBS reporters spent five years on a story they had been told from the beginning was shaky; they plotted a book deal for a source to encourage disclosures that ''could possibly change the momentum of an election;'' they got in bed with the Kerry campaign; but political bias doesn't have anything to do with it?

That's a conclusion that will play very well at CBS, which has spent three decades burying its head in the sand to avoid being confronted with Rather's political shenanigans. He publicly insulted President Nixon, then got into an on-air shouting match with the first President Bush. Just three years ago he gave a speech at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Texas. If the network had disciplined Rather for any of those things, if it had sent a message that it wouldn't tolerate confusion between its reporters' personal politics and their professional duties, it might have avoided Monday's humiliating mess. Likewise, the independent panel would have done CBS an immense favor by advising the network to take a hard look at itself. Former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, in his book Bias, wrote that many newsrooms are locked in a collective groupthink that prevents them from noticing their political leanings any more than a fish notices water. It's not that there's a morning meeting where reporters and editors sit down to conspire against Bush or Republicans; rather, because they overwhelmingly share the same liberal ideology, what strikes outsiders as political bias simply seems common sense to them. If ''everybody knows'' that Bush is a liar, a coward and a spoiled rich kid, there's no need to spend a lot of time proving it.

The independent panel came tantalizingly close to putting its finger on the problem when it said CBS pursued the Bush story with ''myopic zeal.'' But the panel attributed the myopia to competitive journalistic instincts, the drive to get a story first, rather than politics. After all, everybody knows there's no liberal bias in the news business.

It's mindboggling that no AG, prosecutor or reporter isn't on this case of blatant collusion like stink-on-$hit.

I heard Brit Hume wonder aloud about how this story is just 'screamin for some enterprising, ambitious reporter to jump on!

"Then the fact that Rather or 60 Minutes NEVER covered the Swiftee story, after doing pieces on every anti Bush weasel to come down the 'pike, simply seals that coffin shut."

They could never do that because all the network were running political cover for Kerry. They all kept claiming that the Swifties accusations were proven untrue, when in fact NONE of them had. You would think that someone would have shown an interest when it was admitted that two of his purple hearts were fraudulent or that he was never in Cambodia.

.

...Media Critics were born to investigate the Media, right..?

...And yet,

...LIBERAL Los Angeles Times Media Critic DAVID SHAW still insists that DAN RATHER's work is...

..'Shoddy, Slipshod' not LIBERAL..?

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227809/posts

.

" Just three years ago he(Rather) gave a speech at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Texas."

Rather said that he spoke at the event as a favor to his daughter.Was the event in Abeline? What is known about his daughter? Any connection to Mapes or Birkett? In Texas,the Democrats play hardball. Something made Rather make a fool of himself for days after the fakes were discovered.Blood is thicker than water....fenway

What was never taken into account by Mapes or Rather was the people's ability to see the many obvious mistakes and call the report into question with such immediacy.

And their reaction (and the eventual reaction of this panel) was to turn normal journalistic standards upside down. Instead of the burden of proof being on CBS to provide strong evidence that the documents were real, instead Rather and Mapes demanded that the critics prove the documents false - basically, to prove a negative. Which the critics did to any reasonable person's satisfaction - but the fact that, at the end of the day, we are still proving a negative means the unreasonable can still claim that there is no proof that the documents are false.

Mapes called in four experts to authenticate the documents. When two said they suspected forgery, Mapes dismissed them as ''flaky,'' the report says.

LOL! Bear in mind that one of the experts Mapes did not dismiss as "flaky" was a graphologist. Graphology is a pseudo-/sham- science which claims (without a shred of evidence, or even consistent and consensual criteria within the field) the ability to read personality traits from handwriting samples.

It's a wonder she didn't hire a psychic.

Deliberately misleading the public, trying to sway a US election to put in power a man like Kerry over a man like Bush ...

... should be the most serious crime a person can commit and should carry the most serious punishment available.

Think about it.

While all the attention is on Rather, Mapes, cBS, etal, it's remarkable that Thornburgh/Bocardi (the chief individuals on the investigative panel) remain unscathed.

The Report was a partial whitewash, of course. The bland Mr. Thornburgh, whose very nice-guy outward persona is an ongoing, invaluable asset to him, had a definite conflict of interest.

It may be argued (as someone did above) that the panel didn't want to get involved in subjectivity or possible future litigation by denying or ignoring the fact that there was any political bias in Rathergate.

But what the panel ended up doing is par for the course in good-old-boy political circles.

Since there is hardly any likelihood that there will be any federal investigations, Thornburgh/Pocardi were safe in going as far as they wanted to and no further.

The Report's slap-on-the wrist conclusion (basically "shoddy journalism") made everyone involved breathe a sigh of relief and made them as happy as possible under the circumstances.

Sleight-of-hand and spin on all sides.

Leni

"The facts are right on the money."

OK then, I think it is time to get to work recreating documentation of hillary clinton's cattle futures trades and those of the other suckers who took her losses so that they can be "revealed" in the next election campaign.

Once it is admitted that the actual documents are forgeries we can press home the fact that the transactions actually happened as shown, and the facts are "right on the money"

But what the panel ended up doing is par for the course in good-old-boy political circles.

The panel has put the information on the table; that's as much as we can ask of them. No matter how CBS spins it, the report drives a wooden stake through their credibility. This piece is pretty much on the ball and the Miami Herald is a very left-leaning paper published in a Democratic stronghold. Alot of people get it even if CBS denies the bias. For a conviction, we will have to take it to a judicial process. The Panel has done its job.

"Rather and Mapes demanded that the critics prove the documents false - basically, to prove a negative..."

It was worse than than that. They deliberately lied to the American public over and over again. R&M told us:

1) The documents were from Killian's personal file
2) Experts had authenticated the documents
3) Co-workers of Killian's authenticated the documents
4) The source of the documents was "unimpeachable"

All lies. Rather's only defense is that he's really Ted Baxter - he just reads the talking points.

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.