Rathergate claims four jobs

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsr...0/topstory.asp


Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush’s National Guard service. The firings came in the wake of a report by an independent panel that concluded CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel —headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi — also said CBS News had compounded that failure with “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report. Out in the purge are SVP Betsy West, who supervised CBS News' primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Exec. Producer Josh Howard; Sr. Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy; and the producer of the controversial piece, Mary Mapes. The correspondent on the story, CBS News anchor Dan Rather, has previously announced his plans to step down from that post in March. Commenting on the findings of the independent investigation, CBS President Les Moonves said, "We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy."

[JonInMiddleGA]

An interesting tidbit or two

Mary Mapes was the producer described as being responsible for the initial CBS story on Abu Ghraib.

Josh Howard is a 14 year vet of 60 Minutes and "helped create the concept" for A&E's Biography series.

Betsy West previously worked on Turning Point, Primetime Live and Nightline

Mary Murphy is a former ass't editor at Newsweek and "Most recently 60 Minutes producer, senior broadcast producer of CBS Sunday Morning, and senior political producer of CBS News' Campaign 2004 unit, which serves as editorial hub for election-year coverage on all broadcasts.[/i]

[Glengoyne]

The one that surprises me on the surface is the Senior VP Prime Time. I haven't seen the report, not even sure it has been released yet, so there may be some reason for her firing beyond "it happened on her watch" type of thing. I wouldn't think an exec tasked with managing Prime Time programming would be canned for a bunch of producers and journalist playing fast and loose with the accepted rules of journalism.

I also wonder if the timing of Rather's retirement announcement has anything to do with this. He was, and apparently still is, a big advocate of the story. Honestly if he hadn't announced his retirement it would be difficult to fire the other folks, without doing anything substantial to him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The one that surprises me on the surface is the Senior VP Prime Time.

You may have noticed this from the beginning, it took me two reads to catch it -- that's Senior VP of CBS News Primetime, not primetime in general. When I realized that, it made more sense than just "primetime" period.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You may have noticed this from the beginning, it took me two reads to catch it -- that's Senior VP of CBS News Primetime, not primetime in general. When I realized that, it made more sense than just "primetime" period.

OK that makes a lot more sense. That means that she was much more likely to have actually been involved in the sham.

[SirFozzie]

Wow.

You know that you've really gone astray when liberal sites like Salon are laying down the heavy end of the hammer.

Anybody who still needs convincing that the decision late last year by CBS newsman Dan Rather to step down was related to his "60 Minutes Wednesday" report on President Bush's National Guard service -- a report tangled up in unverified documents -- should read the independent 224-page review of the debacle issued Monday by the network.

The blunt assessment paints an at-times shocking portrait of an elite CBS news crew driven astray by a stampeding producer, Mary Mapes, who knew about flaws in the "60 Minutes Wednesday" report and yet hid them from her bosses. In the wake of the review, conducted by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press president Louis Boccardi, CBS fired Mapes and demanded the resignation of three senior CBS executives -- senior vice president Betsy West, executive producer Josh Howard and his deputy, Mary Murphy. If Rather hadn't already announced his pending departure, it would have been nearly impossible for the network to keep him on either. Even though Rather's role was mostly symbolic -- he was too caught up in hurricane coverage at the time to become immersed in the flawed research -- simply being associated with the tainted report would have been too much for him to shoulder. (And Monday night he didn't; Rather was a no-show for his anchor job at "CBS Evening News," and Bob Schieffer filled in.)

[duckman]

I wouldn't be suprised if Rather leaves before he intended to.

[Solecismic]

Nobody seems to realize yet the extraordinary damage done to all news organizations during the recent election campaign.

The men writing the report had an inkling, but they chose to fall all over themselves insisting they saw no evidence of a political bias driving this story. That was a huge mistake.

Political bias was strongly suggested based on Mapes' record of activism. Rather than covering this up, it should have been emphasized. Unless efforts are made to rid newsrooms of political activists (and again, they're resident at CBS, ABC, the AP, Fox News, The New York Times, and just about every other news organization), this will continue to happen, and the public trust in journalism will continue to erode.

The reason that story was aired was only partially a rush to publish. It was aired specifically because Mapes and many others at CBS are activists who felt they had a duty to affect the election. They simply did not want to know if the documents were forged or not, they just wanted someone to provide them regardless of their credibility.

Notice how CBS used the term "unimpeachable source" when it first defended the documents. The men writing the audit said they had no idea where that statement came from. That's because they had to pussy-foot around the concept that CBS deliberately short-circuited its vetting process. Too bad. This could have been an opportunity to really change things.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Nobody seems to realize yet the extraordinary damage done to all news organizations during the recent election campaign.

The men writing the report had an inkling, but they chose to fall all over themselves insisting they saw no evidence of a political bias driving this story. That was a huge mistake.

Political bias was strongly suggested based on Mapes' record of activism. Rather than covering this up, it should have been emphasized. Unless efforts are made to rid newsrooms of political activists (and again, they're resident at CBS, ABC, the AP, Fox News, The New York Times, and just about every other news organization), this will continue to happen, and the public trust in journalism will continue to erode.

The reason that story was aired was only partially a rush to publish. It was aired specifically because Mapes and many others at CBS are activists who felt they had a duty to affect the election. They simply did not want to know if the documents were forged or not, they just wanted someone to provide them regardless of their credibility.

Notice how CBS used the term "unimpeachable source" when it first defended the documents. The men writing the audit said they had no idea where that statement came from. That's because they had to pussy-foot around the concept that CBS deliberately short-circuited its vetting process. Too bad. This could have been an opportunity to really change things.

I had this discussion with a friend yesterday. I said there were political motives involved. He insists that there was only a rush to get the scoop for reporting the story. I said that if the documents in question had been related to Kerry petitioning for a purple heart against a doctor's reccomendation, there would have been no way the story gets out. He insists that CBS would have done the same. I just don't buy it.

I believe that these people finally had their smoking gun, and since it fit so well with their own beliefs, they ran with it. If upon first hearing the content of the letters, I declared that they were likely fakes. Why didn't these veteran journalists know not to look a gift horse in the mouth. The reason to me is plain, they so wanted the story that they looked the other way. They would not have been so motivated to get the scoop on a story that would be harmful to Kerry.

My reasoning, that there is evidence that the politics played a role here. 60 minutes and all of network news in general runs dozens/hundreds of stories a week. In the vast majority of those cases they do their homework, but not on this story about the President.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My reasoning, that there is evidence that the politics played a role here. 60 minutes and all of network news in general runs dozens/hundreds of stories a week. In the vast majority of those cases they do their homework, but not on this story about the President.

Don't forget also that this wasn't the only story about Bush's NG record that was released that week. It seemed all of the sudden several news sources had uncovered stuff all just "coincendently" at the same time. This was a concerted effort on the part of some Democrat movers and shakers, and it ended up exploding in their face. (I'm not saying the Republicans don't do the exact same thing. They do, and often. Just nothing that ended up backfiring as bad as this)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Nobody seems to realize yet the extraordinary damage done to all news organizations during the recent election campaign.

I agree with everything you said, Jim. And to think, their integrity would have been questioned even more...had Kerry actually won.

[stevew]

Someone needs to break out some of the ole "whats the frequnecy kenneth" again on Rather. This would be the perfect time for CBS to head right. Just think of how much more money they would make as a more right of center news source. Fire rather, and replace him with some younger conservatives.