CBS News questioned about Mike Wallace's appearance at Brady fund-raiser


PDA






Desertdog
October 16, 2005, 10:41 PM
Anybody surprised?

Mike Wallace's anti-gun advocacy challenged
CBS News questioned about reporter's appearance at Brady fund-raiser
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46855



Mike Wallace at Brady Center fund-raiser
CBS News' ethical standards are being challenged after veteran reporter Mike Wallace's appearance at an anti-gun Brady Center fund-raiser in Washington, D.C., last month.

At the event, held at the French Embassy, Wallace played a clip of his "60 Minutes" interview with then-NRA president Charlton Heston, whom he described as the "self-righteous enemy of the Jim and Sarah Brady Bunch," reported blogger and radio host Cam Edwards at NRANews.com.


Edwards said that afterwards, Wallace mocked Heston by holding up his hands, as if holding a rifle, and saying, "in my dead hands ... remember when he used to hold up ... " as the crowd tittered.

Wallace told event honoree Art Buchwald he gave a $250 contribution to the Brady Center.

The NRANews.com host sent a letter to the CBS News weblog, asking if the appearance comported with the network's policies.

CBS News Public Eye blogger Vaughn Ververs said he spoke with Linda Mason, senior vice president for standards and special projects at CBS News, who said: "We allow CBS correspondents to speak at various functions and occasionally show video. We have strict regulations that if a CBS correspondent becomes identifiable with one side of a controversial issue, they will not be allowed to cover that issue in the future."

Ververs said he asked Mason whether Wallace's appearance made him "identifiable" with the gun-control cause.

She replied, "we're looking into it to determine" that.

If you enjoyed reading about "CBS News questioned about Mike Wallace's appearance at Brady fund-raiser" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
October 16, 2005, 11:14 PM
If the Cretin Broadcasting System is "looking into it," you can rest assured no fault will be found—except, of course, with the N.R.A., the Republican party, and President Bush.

Justin
October 16, 2005, 11:26 PM
I suppose that an unintended positive consequence of the MSM getting utterly owned by web-based nooze orgs, blogs, forums, etc. is that their representatives can go do stuff like this and no one will really care, because no one is really paying them any mind any more.

Zundfolge
October 16, 2005, 11:27 PM
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/10-15-2005.gif

beerslurpy
October 16, 2005, 11:27 PM
I really loved hearing on NPR how congressional staffers at the national and state levels pay close attention to the blogs.

Carnitas
October 17, 2005, 12:17 AM
We have strict regulations that if a CBS correspondent becomes identifiable with one side of a controversial issue, they will not be allowed to cover that issue in the future."


So if a correspondent wants to do a hit piece they need to do their story BEFORE they come out of the closet. Apparently that's acceptible conduct.

Kim
October 17, 2005, 01:50 AM
The MSM are dying. They look like old fools. They have lost control and don't know how to handle the truth of it. People have awakened to their long time lying and slanting of the news. Few believe them anymore. We need a new batch of reporters but they can not come from the so called professional journalism schools who are very left wing in ideology. The massses are getting smarter and elite still go to their parties and attend fundraisers for their pet causes and think we are none the wiser. I see a day of reckoning approaching and they are not going to be happy when their apple cart gets pushed over. It has already started Dan Rather, Jason Blair,Judith Miller, The apppauling coverage of Katrina, the coverage of Ms. Sheehan, the 2000 election, the poor coverage of the war etc. It is fun to watch.:D

scbair
October 17, 2005, 12:25 PM
Good point, Kim! We do need a new batch of reporters.

Now, if one of the MSM would care to employ my son, currently a journalism major . . .

Make that "currently a SIG P239-packin', deer huntin', libertarian journalism major!"

Signed,
Proud Papa! :D

publius
October 17, 2005, 02:13 PM
Nah, ABC has Stossel, and the feeling is that one libertarian is too many. ;)

c_yeager
October 19, 2005, 04:03 AM
While I think that the man is a scumbag I have to question the notion that reporters arent allowed to have political opinions. They are people, so they get to have beliefs and they are allowed to support their causes (no matter how insane).

El Rojo
October 19, 2005, 09:30 AM
Yeah, I agree. So he went to a Brady function. If I were a reporter I would sure as heck be attending NRA functions. He has first amendment rights too. Just take it for what it is. I like CBS's policy on controversial issues. We just keep reminding them of that anytime he even thinks of reporting on guns.

TexasRifleman
October 19, 2005, 09:36 AM
So it's fine that he went to this function. Is it fine he made fun of the deceased?

How about if Wayne LaPierre got in a wheelchair and made fun of Brady, how do you think the reaction would be then? Same?

It's OK to make fun of Charlton Heston, their chief image maker Michael Moore says so. Turn the tables around and they would be calling for heads to roll.

EVIL5LITER
October 19, 2005, 01:01 PM
So it's fine that he went to this function. Is it fine he made fun of the deceased?

How about if Wayne LaPierre got in a wheelchair and made fun of Brady, how do you think the reaction would be then? Same?

It's OK to make fun of Charlton Heston, their chief image maker Michael Moore says so. Turn the tables around and they would be calling for heads to roll.

Heston died?

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 19, 2005, 01:36 PM
Anybody surprised?Nope

TexasRifleman
October 19, 2005, 01:40 PM
Heston died?

No I guess not. I had it in my head he had passed already. Had to look it up.

Anyway, point is the same, I'd love to see the reaction to Wayne LaPierre in a wheelchair doing an impersonation of Brady. Why is it OK for them to behave this way?

c_yeager
October 19, 2005, 02:38 PM
It's OK to make fun of Charlton Heston, their chief image maker Michael Moore says so. Turn the tables around and they would be calling for heads to roll.


I would be willing to bet good money that there are more snide remarks being made about MM than Heston in public. There was a pretty solid length of time when half the country was publicly ridiculing the man. Noone really cares all that much about Heston.

Just for the record, yeah ITS OK. We live in a nifty country were people are allowed to be complete jerks at will. You can use that information to decide if a person is worth listening to or not. I made my decision regarding Wallace a long time ago.

44Special
October 19, 2005, 08:32 PM
The MSM are dying. They look like old fools. They have lost control and don't know how to handle the truth of it. People have awakened to their long time lying and slanting of the news. Few believe them anymore. We need a new batch of reporters but they can not come from the so called professional journalism schools who are very left wing in ideology. The massses are getting smarter and elite still go to their parties and attend fundraisers for their pet causes and think we are none the wiser. I see a day of reckoning approaching and they are not going to be happy when their apple cart gets pushed over. It has already started Dan Rather, Jason Blair,Judith Miller, The apppauling coverage of Katrina, the coverage of Ms. Sheehan, the 2000 election, the poor coverage of the war etc. It is fun to watch.:D

This sounds like you think Judith Miller is left-wing. The controversy is over the widespread belief she carried the water of the RIGHT wing rather than writing objectively. Personally, I think she may have been a not-as-good-as-some-hoped reporter, but I don't think she's politically motivated either way.

Byron Quick
October 19, 2005, 08:58 PM
While I think that the man is a scumbag I have to question the notion that reporters arent allowed to have political opinions. They are people, so they get to have beliefs and they are allowed to support their causes (no matter how insane).

Sure, they can have any political beliefs they want to have, support any group they want to support, and so forth.

What they can't do and remain ethical journalists is file report as a journalist praising their cause and denigrating its opponents. A reporter wants to be a member of PETA? Fine, he just needs to recognize that he can no longer be trusted to be an impartial observer and reporter of things related to the meat industry, medical research, the fur industry, etc. It's not really a cause for concern until a journalist attempts to use his professional work to support his private causes and beliefs.

He can believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Just keep those beliefs out of the journalism delivered to me for I have no interest in his inane beliefs.

It's akin to actors, singers, and musicians getting up on various bandwagons for their cause. However, it is an ethics issue with journalists.

If I want information about nuclear power's possible negative impacts on the environment then I will listen to nuclear physicists, ecologists, climatogists and people of those types of expertise. If I want to know about songwriting and making my living as a musician, then I'll have a talk with Jackson Browne or Barbara Streisand.

c_yeager
October 20, 2005, 01:34 AM
What they can't do and remain ethical journalists is file report as a journalist praising their cause and denigrating its opponents. A reporter wants to be a member of PETA? Fine, he just needs to recognize that he can no longer be trusted to be an impartial observer and reporter of things related to the meat industry, medical research, the fur industry, etc.

There is nothing in the law that *requires* a journalist to be an impartial observer. They can color their reporting with as much bias as they want. Its up to the consumer wether or not they wish to but that bias or not.

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 10:05 AM
There is nothing in the law that *requires* a journalist to be an impartial observer. They can color their reporting with as much bias as they want. Its up to the consumer wether or not they wish to but that bias or not.



And I never claimed there was such a law. Go back and read the material of mine you quoted. Note where I said 'ethical.' Being ethical is not necessarily congruent with being law abiding. Yes, they color their reporting with as much bias as they please. They just cannot do so and remain within what is considered ethical journalism. Many, if not most, are not ethical.

Do you believe that ethics are defined by law? Some ethical issues are also addressed by law, but only those that catch the attention of legislators.

halvey
October 20, 2005, 10:14 AM
Keep it up CBS. They'll either get it as their ratings fall even lower, or simply cease to exist.

Blogs and the internet are the modern news anyway. As more and more people get connected, the networks will become less and less significant.

Janitor
October 20, 2005, 10:20 AM
Byron is absolutely correct. It is not a legal requirement that they be ethical, but being ethical has its own requirements.

Being ethical is not necessarily congruent with being law abiding
This is so sad. It's not much of a reach at all to feel that laws alone guide what a journalist will or won't do. Ethics seem to be a luxury the entertainment industry cannot afford.

jsalcedo
October 20, 2005, 10:31 AM
Forgive me for being dense but I have no idea what this means:

Wallace mocked Heston by holding up his hands, as if holding a rifle, and saying, "in my dead hands ... remember when he used to hold up ... "


I remember Heston holding up a rifle but what is the "..." referring to?

R.H. Lee
October 20, 2005, 10:53 AM
Anybody surprised?

I thought Mike Wallace was an independent investigative journalist. I had no idea he was biased. :p

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 11:14 AM
When ... is used at the beginning, within the body, or at the end of a quotation, it alerts the reader that the quotation has been truncated, i.e, the quotation is not presented in its entirety.

SteveS
October 20, 2005, 12:43 PM
I would prefer that journalists were open in regards to their political (and other) beliefs. People then can decide how much weight to apply to the article or report. I know that some stories are more objective than others, but I am highly skeptical of stories that claim to be objective, nor do I think it is possible to be totally objective.

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 02:28 PM
but I am highly skeptical of stories that claim to be objective, nor do I think it is possible to be totally objective.


I feel the same. The only way I can see being totally objective about an issue is to be totally apathetic to that issue. I don't think that would be a good thing, either.

Perhaps the closest that a jounalist could come to being objective is full disclosure of possible biases. For example, a journalist who was also a Libertarian, when reporting on a controversy between Republicans and Democrats, could say something such as,"I'm a member of the Libertarian Party, I have difficulty differentiating between a Republican conservative and a Democratic liberal. Frankly, I find the platforms of both parties to be dangerous to the nation. But, bear with me, and we'll try to figure out what theses bozos are fighting about. It seems to be how much control the government should have over which parts of your lives. The conservatives and liberals are apparently in agreement that the government should control the lives of the citizenry.":D:D

Mongo the Mutterer
October 20, 2005, 02:39 PM
I have to laugh when I hear the term "professional journalist". Scuuzzee meeeee.... Unless I am wrong, to be a professional you have to

1. have clear standards of conduct.

2. have licensing requirements.

3. have a licensing or professional board and standards you are answerable to.

Doctors, accountants, nursing home operators, lawyers, barbers, and beauticians (as well as many professions which don't come to mind) have those requirements.

What does a journalist have? A pen? A laptop? A copy of the Communist Manifesto? Thats about all. They aren't a profession, they are propagandists.

Desertdog
October 20, 2005, 02:50 PM
I have to laugh when I hear the term "professional journalist". Scuuzzee meeeee.... Unless I am wrong, to be a professional you have to

1. have clear standards of conduct.

2. have licensing requirements.

3. have a licensing or professional board and standards you are answerable to.

IMO, to be a professional you only need to make money from it, presumbaly enough to live on.

Mongo the Mutterer
October 21, 2005, 01:08 PM
Desertdog = correct..

Mongo = wrong :banghead:

Art Eatman
October 21, 2005, 01:29 PM
Seems to me that the lines have been blurred, mostly since Wateegate and Deep Throat and "I'm going to J-school so I can make a DIFFERENCE!"

There are reporters: The job is to tell the old who, what, when, where, and how or why. Then, stop. Leave opinions out of it.

Journalists: Go find out. Report on what was found. Bias is okay, as long as any false claim of objectivity isn't made.

Commentators/Editorialists/Op-Ed: This where the Hannity/Colmes/Limbaugh enters in. Whether or not you agree with their views is irrelevant--but their viewpoints are known.

You can judge the views of the talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows, regardless of their pretense. One side gets soft questions, the other gets hard questions. It's easy, then to figure it all out...

Art

UnknownSailor
October 21, 2005, 02:53 PM
Being ethical goes hand in hand with being trustworthy. For as long as anyone can remember from the Conservative side of the isle, the media has been more and more unethical. This has lead to a concurrent reduction in the trust that we, the viewing public, place in the reporting done by said news organizations. Now that we can, as the saying goes, "fact check their a**" with that wonderful medium that is the internet, we can see that the emperor has no clothes on, and hasn't for quite some while.

Legacy media hasn't caught on, in most cases, and those that do understand what's going on are trying to fight it, with McCain-Feingold being one notable example.

It's fun to watch, because the fall of National News is a good thing for those of us who want our freedoms back. Now, our voice can be heard, because legacy media no longer has a lock on what We the People can see and read.

If you enjoyed reading about "CBS News questioned about Mike Wallace's appearance at Brady fund-raiser" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!