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

[Desertdog]

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.

 

[Standing Wolf]

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]

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]

 

[beerslurpy]

I really loved hearing on NPR how congressional staffers at the national and state levels pay close attention to the blogs.

 

[Carnitas]

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]

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.

 

[scbair]

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!

 

[publius]

Nah, ABC has Stossel, and the feeling is that one libertarian is too many.

 

[c_yeager]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Anybody surprised?

Nope

 

[TexasRifleman]

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]

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]

Judith Miller left wing?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Anybody surprised?

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

 

[Byron Quick]

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.