It’s Not the Cover-Up, It’s Doing Something That Needed to Be Covered Up
I keep hearing that CBS was duped, and that its main mistake was in poorly responding to the questions raised about its story.
No, no — a thousand times, no!
As Tom Maguire says:
“…if knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired.”
What?! ? If he had only known then that CBS had received six documents, and his own hired consultants laughed out loud at two of them? If he had only known that his producer had interviewed Killian’s son, who was extremely skeptical? If he had only known that one of his “document experts” had only approved the signatures, and claimed that authenticating copies was not possible?
I would add: If he had only known that Bobby W. Hodges hadn’t really confirmed the content of the documents, but said instead: “well if he wrote them that’s what he felt”?
And so on.
These are not people who were duped. And the problem is not how they handled it once they were caught — though they handled that part badly. Their main transgression was in ignoring the evidence staring them in the face before the story ever ran. At the very least, they could have given some time on the broadcast to the dissenters.
But they didn’t. And I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: don’t fool yourself believing that this is the first time this has happened. Come on. If you have watched “60 Minutes” then you are familiar with that feeling you have at the end of a segment, when you think to yourself: “Wow, everything seems to point to one conclusion.” You thought that was because everything really did point to one conclusion?
Nope. It’s because everything else was left on the cutting room floor.
We’re just seeing one very notorious example where they got caught.
UPDATE: Welcome to Instapundit readers, and thanks to Prof. Reynolds for linking to this post. My main page is here. I hope new readers will bookmark/blogroll the site and return often.
Bloglines subscribers, you can click on this icon to subscribe to Patterico:
No question that CBS has been been in this business before. Remember, too, their role in the 2000 election in being the first to “call” Florida while polls in the conservative panhandle (in CST) were still open.
The real question and scandal, as Rush pointed out today, is who gave CBS the documents and why this is not being covered now …
Comment by Daisy — 9/20/2004 @ 11:06 pm
No question that CBS has been been in this business before. Remember, too, their role in the 2000 election in being the first to “call” Florida while polls in the conservative panhandle (in CST) were still open.
The real question and scandal, as Rush pointed out today, is who gave CBS the documents and why this is not being covered now …
Comment by Daisy — 9/20/2004 @ 11:06 pm
Ever since i heard cbs’ phony “we sorry” i have been searching for the right words to express my anger that the MSM have been missing the point.
Finaly, i found them. and they turn out to be yours.
“These are not people who were duped. And the problem is not how they handled it once they were caught — though they handled that part badly. Their main transgression was in ignoring the evidence staring them in the face before the story ever ran. ”
your entire rant expresses the truth as i see it, and i deeply resent the main stream media for ignoring it.
Comment by reader3 — 9/20/2004 @ 11:40 pm
“…if knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired.”
He means that if he knew he would be caught, he would not have gone ahead. It’s all in the context
Comment by ras — 9/21/2004 @ 1:34 am
I haven’t trusted 60 Minutes since they single-handedly almost destroyed Audi with their poor investigating and yellow journalism.
The only question now is, will Dan be able to brazen this out?
Comment by Veeshir — 9/21/2004 @ 6:08 am
The cover up is pretty nasty too.
Their first line was “We did far more investigation than normal on this one.”
Eeek.
Comment by Al — 9/21/2004 @ 8:01 am
“If we knew then what we know now.” That would be:
1. The Internet community would see through the fakes within a few hours.
2. The Internet community would be so influential on public opinion.
3. That our spin would be so ineffective.
4. That the story wouldn’t go away when we didn’t cover it.
5. That common people (the Internet) would do their own research that would show ours to be half-hearted and non-existent.
6. That there are actually people in America who don’t hate Bush…
Ad infinitum.
Comment by Jim — 9/21/2004 @ 8:59 am
“At the very least, they could have given some time on the broadcast to the dissenters.” That’s about the funniest thing anyone has said about this. Can you, deep in your mind’s eye, even envision such a thing? Has 60 Minutes (unlike say Frontline or Nova) EVER presented two sides to any story? Not once have ever seen it, in a show that has been on the air since 1968 (when I was two).
Comment by Steve — 9/21/2004 @ 9:23 am
Media Watchers!
Make sure to stop by Patterico every day. He’s all over the various forms of media bias. Here, he discusses the malpractice at CBS: These are not people who were duped. And the problem is not how they handled it…
Trackback by Little Miss Attila — 9/21/2004 @ 2:23 pm
It just raises the NYT another notch higher in my esteem for their self-appraisal on Iraq and their coverage of those events.
Who do you trust? Who can you trust?
Only your own ability to analyse and filter truth from s!!!.
Comment by probligo — 9/21/2004 @ 5:01 pm
Back in to late ’70s, 60 Minutes did a story about Arcosanti. I had spent the summer there a few years before, and I was astounded at their negative slant. After talking about the grand plans and showing the model, they then showed the small portion that had been built. But to do so, the camera crew had to walk across a large, rattlesnake-infested area and climb a fairly distant ridge. They very literally went out of their way to make the site look as small as possible. Later they talked about Arcosanti’s ecological goals, then triumphantly showed drums filled with construction debris. They seemed to think that construction debris at a construction site was evidence of ecological hypocrisy or something. It was such a hatchet job I never watched the show again.
Comment by PapayaSF — 9/21/2004 @ 8:08 pm
Add to the Arcosanti smear the one they did on Gary Gygax and his game, “Dungeons and Dragons.” Google it and read what Gygax has to say about the hatchet job 60 Minutes did on him.
I trust them not.
Comment by Jeffersonian — 9/21/2004 @ 8:27 pm
Down The Bunny Trail
Patterico talks about whether CBS was duped or not. I think it should be obvious by now that not only was CBS not a victim as they claim but they were complicit. Dan Rather was a willful participant in an…
Trackback by Sandesk — 9/21/2004 @ 8:47 pm
Fine. Dan blew it and the entire blog nation chest-thumps.
Along with this pile-on about CBS not vetting Bill Burkett, inquire why George Bush never vetted Ahmed Chalabi. A guy who hadn’t been in Iraq since the Dodgers left Brooklyn implausibly turned into our “unimpeachable” source.
Everybody needs stories to be true too much.
Comment by steve — 9/21/2004 @ 9:36 pm
The Illusion of Truth
Watching the 60 Minutes fiasco, and noting once again what Patterico points out: that the 60 Minutes trademark is hammering down one point of view to the exclusion of all else, I’m reminded of a Babylon 5 episode called The…
Trackback by The Interocitor — 9/21/2004 @ 10:35 pm
Hey Steve,
Ahmed Chalabi was attacked by the same MSM that attacks Bush daily. Their evidence was probably no better than the forged documents either. The MSM will attack anything and everything that they believe will help them defeat Bush.
Chalabi wasn’t picked by the Bush administration, but you want to hold Bush accountable for any wrong doing he had done, if they ever prove the charges against him are true.
Comment by Gary B. — 9/22/2004 @ 1:24 am
Dan Rather says “they did far more investigating than normal”, yet failed completely.
Imagine the stories they spend the normal time on? How much are screwed up? These people are suppose to be professionals. They’re either not qualified to continue doing their jobs, or else they’re just were doing what they’ve always been doing and were completely caught off guard by the wave of internet journalist who they love to ridicule.
Well Mr. Rather, listen up. We want the truth period. Not your version of the truth.
Comment by Gary B. — 9/22/2004 @ 1:38 am
Not the first time, not the last
Patterico has it right:
Trackback by Cold Fury — 9/22/2004 @ 5:04 am
I’m still wondering how Mary Mapes, after 5 years of investigating this story, could only come up with a handfull of forged documents, a West Texas nut-job, and a professional syncophant to build a story around. Maybe there just wasn’t anything there.
Comment by Dan — 9/22/2004 @ 5:41 am
Rather’s claim that he was misled reminds me of the excuse of a teenage girl: “But he said I wouldn’t get pregnant!”
Dan knew about cause and effect. He just chose to ignore it.
Comment by Amphipolis — 9/22/2004 @ 5:42 am
The Mighty Have Fallen!
According to Drudge:CBS DOC SOURCE SET TO SUE NETWORK FOR LIBEL
Wed Sep 22 2004 00:05:20 ET
Bill Burkett, the man identified yesterday by CBS as the source of the controversial documents used in its September 8 “60 Minutes II” report questioning …
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — 9/22/2004 @ 6:14 am
Sell CBS News to Enron and hire Ken Lay to run it.
That would be a step UP for Rather & Co.
Comment by Tom Paine — 9/22/2004 @ 6:33 am
A day or two ago, a number of posters were feeling sorry for Mary Mapes. Maybe I should too, but from all I have seen, I don’t. Yes, she is probably going to take the fall (or the sword, etc.) for this. But by all indications, she should.
She is apparently a zelous partisan, using CBS’s resourses to try to take down the President. What do you think the expose on Abu Ghraib was? She fired off weeks and weeks of criticism of the war based on what were really sophomoric pranks. Yes, they were bad, not what we stand for, etc. But what do you expect with 1/8 of a million soldiers, most college aged, in Iraq? I am just surprised there hasn’t been more.
So, she has had a vendetta against President Bush for at least five years. My guess, being from Texas, it actually goes back ten (six as gov., four as Pres.). And she used her position at CBS to try to defeat him, by whatever means she could, fair, or, here, foul.
Of course, Rather, another partisan Democrat, didn’t look too closely at the gift horse she gave him. Why should he? He wants to bring Bush down too.
Comment by Bruce Hayden — 9/22/2004 @ 9:13 am
“…its main mistake was in poorly responding to the questions raised about its story. No, No, etc.”
Depends on your point of view. I agree it wasn’t their main transgression, but it sure was a big mistake for CBS. If the story had been retracted with an apology immediately after the allegations surfaced, it’s hard to imagine the story would have become as prominent as it has, or that people would have continued to dig as deeply as they did. I’m sure there would still have been people demanding to know who was behind it, but would anyone have been paying attention?
CBS’ handling of the issue may have even been a positive thing for those interested in the truth, but was a huge mistake as far as they are concerned. It’s a little ironic; their stonewalling probably resulted in more details coming to light than would have otherwise been the case.
Comment by Sean E — 9/22/2004 @ 12:16 pm