Another Black Eye for CBS


PDA






Desertdog
October 2, 2004, 10:46 PM
This is about CBS, but I feel ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC are almost as bad as CBS. I decided this when I watched CNN broadcasting live from Viet Nam and Gulf War1 and then listened to the news cast on the networks.
What they discribed did not sound anything like what had been shown live. They made us sound like the bad guys.
It seems they have gotten worse, not better. Maybe a bankruptcy or two, or Fox News Channel can change things . Dd

Another Black Eye for CBS
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/09/27/Maxim/Another.Black.Eye.For.Cbs-736141.shtml
By Paul M. Rodriguez



Question: What will it take for CBS to play the news straight?

Answer: I have no clue. But I know this: Until CBS cleans shop, I don't think anyone can fix what's wrong.

What brings this to mind is a report September 28 by Richard Schlesinger involving Internet speculation about resumption of a military draft. I knew the story was flawed but did not learn of the apparent egregious nature of the flaws until I scanned numerous websites the next day where the story was dissected - as was done on the now-infamous Dan Rather story about the Texas Air National Guard and George W. Bush.

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if CBS News is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee - or at least a satellite office for John Kerry's campaign committee.

I was begrudgingly sticking with my beliefs that despite the screw-ups by Rather and his bosses over the apparently fake ANG documents, CBS newsmen (and even the network's anchor and managing editor) still could be solid journalists. So to speak, I thought the debacle (and ongoing internal/external probe) would actually spur a higher ethical standard at the Tiffany Network.

Brother, was I wrong. And I'm now wondering whether other CBS stories aired over the years also contained flaws, errors, bad judgment and perhaps even purposeful deceit. As a consumer of news I should never harbor such thoughts. But now I do...because of CBS.

I'm not alone in such worries as colleagues, friends and acquaintances at CBS and the other networks, not to mention magazines and newspapers are wondering the same thing. And also wondering whether news reports they carry will now be suspect and subjected to closer scrutiny - including stories previously aired, broadcast or printed.

Like before with Rather on the Bush story, the CBS reporter not only engaged in sloppy journalism and innuendo based on false facts, the story lacked context that a reasonable person can only assume was purposeful and meant to harm President Bush.

How else to explain Schlesinger's story that failed to mention that it was Democrats in Congress, including Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who have introduced legislation to revive the draft? How else to explain the failure to tell viewers that a reportedly worried mother interviewed is a well-known anti-draft and anti-war organizer obviously with an agenda?

How else to explain the failure put context on comments by the acting director of the Selective Service System who was quoted as saying he could mount a draft in six month ... but, as he's said in the past and the agency says on its website, only if that's what Congress and the president want to do?

How else to explain that despite Internet rumors about a draft being reinstated, numerous debunking sites have unveiled the gossip as false and yet, Schlesinger didn't mention this and he did not point out that the Defense Department and White House said it's not true?

It's one thing to screw up the facts or get wrong facts. It's quite another to invent a story and hype it with biased reporting that fails to put the issue into context. And in this case, there neither was a story nor an issue - other than perhaps a story on why Democrats like Rangel think it's a good idea to revive the military draft. But that would not have dinged the Republicans and more pointedly, smeared President Bush.

We've said this many times over many years - we don't care if newsmen have bias and prejudices so long as they don't allow such personal feelings to overshadow the integrity of a news report that provides accurate information and puts that information into context.

The story CBS News should have aired - if any had to be aired - is who is behind the Internet hoax on the draft and/or why are Democrats so interested in bringing back the draft. Exploring this coupled with rejection of such an idea by Bush, Republicans and the military might have been interesting. I don't know.

But I know this: At least it would have been an honest report, not one fabricated and filled with false and mis-leading information that can only be attributed to political motivations by those at CBS.

Dan Rather rightly is in hot water over his disingenuous antics on the ANG story and follow up interviews. And no doubt he will be soundly criticized once the outside investigators brought in by CBS bosses finish their probe about what went wrong.

Schlesinger now also must be investigated by these hired guns - and CBS has no choice but to launch an expanded internal probe into the judgments, motivations and management of its evening news anchor who runs the same department where Schlesinger reportedly works and one has to assume reports directly to ... guess who? Dan Rather, the managing editor of CBS News.

Contrary to what most press outlets have been reporting after Rather said he was "sorry" about the Texas ANG fiasco, neither he nor CBS has actually apologized to the American public, the family of the now-deceased ANG commander, and to President Bush.

To paraphrase Riley - What a revolting development this is!

email the author

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Black Eye for CBS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hawkmoon
October 2, 2004, 10:58 PM
Nothing new.

Do you remember a number of years ago 60 Minutes ran a story on the fuel tanks of Chevy pickups exploding in side-impact collisions? They showed a graphic sequence of a car ramming the side of a Chevy pickup, with the truck exploding in flames.

What they failed to mention was that the first time (or times, I don't recall how many) they tried it, the truck obstinately refused to explode ... or even to catch fire. So they brought in a stunt coordinator to rig a small explosive charge that was set off at the moment of impact, thus guaranteeing the intended result.

Great objective journalism, eh?

Blackcloud6
October 2, 2004, 11:09 PM
I don't think it was 60 minutes that did the truck explosion thing but it was the show that Diane Sawyer was on. I can't remember the name.

Hkmp5sd
October 2, 2004, 11:11 PM
Not to mention the video segment back during the initial "assault weapon" fiasco with a police officer demonstrating how they are designed to cause horrible wounds. He shot a watermelon with an AR-15 to show the awesome power of the .223 FMJ. Unfortunately, the bullet drilled a small hole through the melon and didn't even make it wobble. Not one to let facts stand in the way of a good story, they taped the LEO shooting the watermelon with a 9mm hollowpoint from his sidearm and did a little creative editing for the televised version.

Highland Ranger
October 2, 2004, 11:14 PM
exploding pickups was ABC or NBC . . . . but they all stink.

Fox is about the best and even they fuzz the line with some of their news magazine format shows.

Standing Wolf
October 3, 2004, 04:12 AM
I gave away my long-unused television over a year ago. I haven't missed it for even half a nanosecond.

c_yeager
October 3, 2004, 04:21 AM
Poor (or agenda driven) reporting isnt even remotely new, think "Spanish American War".

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
October 3, 2004, 04:35 AM
Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if CBS News is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee - or at least a satellite office for John Kerry's campaign committee.

Dan Rather has done fundraising for the DNC in the past. What does that tell you?

Jeff Timm
October 3, 2004, 08:23 AM
J. Edgar Hoover warned us back in the 1950's that the communists would infiltrate our media, our schools, and major political parties.

Now the Neo-communist Democrat party controls the major news media, and the NEA convention says that defeating Bush is more important than 60% of HS graduates being unable to read the diplomas in their hands.

Gee, Hoover couldn't possibly be right could he??

Geoff Timm
Who is not amused. :uhoh:

hksw
October 3, 2004, 10:16 AM
...60 Minutes ran a story on the fuel tanks of Chevy pickups exploding ...

NBC Jane Pauley. Probably Dateline.

agricola
October 3, 2004, 10:16 AM
and Fox (and the rest of the Murdoch crowd) gets a pass why exactly?

the current mania for news and "the story" is what is creating this occasional lean towards fabrication (over here, we have had the Sky report that led to a reporter killing himself; the Mirror "torture photo" scandal as well as more than a few stories about "miscarriages of justice" that have in fact been nothing of the kind).

the problem isnt at the level of CBS, Sky or Fox, its spread throughout the whole profession.

MuzzleBlast
October 3, 2004, 10:37 AM
I decided this when I watched CNN broadcasting live from Viet Nam and Gulf War1 and then listened to the news cast on the networks. CNN broadcast live from 'Nam during the war? I would imagine that would have been rather difficult, since they didn't exist back then.

wolf
October 3, 2004, 02:00 PM
for those who have not....see the movie "Network"...it was "radical" when it came out...now its a "reality" show..


wolf

gigmike
October 3, 2004, 03:32 PM
It was Dateline that ran the exploding Chevy pickup story. But don't forget CBS agreed to air a Michael Jackson concert in return for him doing an interview on 60 Minutes.

It used to be the media existed to get the news out and advertising simply paid the bills. Today advertising drives the media, you need "shocking" stories to sell the ads. The saying "if it bleeds, it leads" is really true.

Shalako
October 3, 2004, 04:38 PM
After the recent presidential debate, CBS broke to a group of individuals for their opinion. They were unanimously in favor of Kerry for the presidency. At that point I finally figured out what the acronym CBS stands for:

CBS = Complete Bull Sh**.

Fair and unbalanced journalism... ya right.

UnknownSailor
October 3, 2004, 06:13 PM
I wouldn't know about TV media. I stopped watching several years ago. I get my news from the internet, now. Promarily blogs, and foxnews.com. Fact checking++

agricola
October 4, 2004, 05:21 AM
and as if to illustrate my point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1319075,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134324,00.html

zpo
October 4, 2004, 06:54 AM
The situation in that second link seems familar, the "fatigue and bad judment, rather than malice" remark rings a bell, but I can't quite remember. Maybe the last election? Dang it, thats gonna bother me.

Henry Bowman
October 4, 2004, 01:32 PM
And I'm now wondering whether other CBS stories aired over the years also contained flaws, errors, bad judgment and perhaps even purposeful deceit.
What you smell is coffee. You have just woken up.

Gunstar1
October 4, 2004, 02:51 PM
CNN aired the infamous Assault Weapon story, in which a AK47 was fired in full auto mode.

Washington times report (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm)

mountainclmbr
October 4, 2004, 11:38 PM
I wouldn't know. I have watched so little of the prime (liberal) news for the past 10 years or so that I can't comment on their coverage. I scan occasionally, but I feel that a lobotamy is in the center between Fox news and the left-winger media. The leftie news bozos are really not "leftists", but are elitists because they have not redistributed their wealth to people that don't work much. It must be easy to redistribute someone elses income!

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Black Eye for CBS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!