![[Photograph: Dan Rather sitting in a sunlit office with his hands on a manual typewriter. Behind him, a desktop computer diplays a Web site.]](photos/dan-computer.jpg)
This page is an archive of our previous updates from 2003. In order to keep loading time down on our main "What's New" page, we shift the stories onto this page after a while. Please note that some of the links referenced here may no longer be valid due to the phenomenon of "link decay." For even older articles, see our pages for 2002 and earlier.
Rather's Anti-Recall Plea
2003-10-07 03:00:10 ET
"You may want to note that among political professionals, there is a wide-spread belief that Schwarzenegger probably already has a long lead in absentee ballots cast days and weeks ago. If true, only an unexpected, overwhelming turnout of no-recall voters tomorrow could prevent Republican Schwarzenegger from becoming governor."
Dan Rather always took a dim view of sexual allegations leveled at the former president. During the Clinton years, he was adamant that the press keep out of politicians' private lives. He even argued it was wrong to discuss a rape charge leveled against Clinton.
Even if the allegation "turns out to be true, it happened a long time ago," Rather said during an appearance on syndicated talk-show host Don Imus's program shortly after Clinton's Senate acquittal. "They've gotta be figuring maybe, just maybe the American public has heard all they want to hear about this and are saying, you know, 'Next; let's move on to the next thing.'"
And that was the view that Rather brought with him into his news coverage. Asked later by FNC's Bill O'Reilly why he never once mentioned the rape allegation, Rather said it was none of his business poking around in Clinton's "private sex life."
"I barely remember but I do remember it," Rather said during a May 15, 2001 interview. "But I will say that -- and you can castigate me if you like--when the charge has something to do with somebody's private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it."
But the Broaddrick case was hardly the first time Rather came to the defense of Clinton. Like many of his fellow Democrats, the CBS honcho was suspicious from the start when a woman named Gennifer Flowers accused candidate Bill Clinton of conducting a multi-year affair with her. Even after Flowers revealed some recorded telephone conversations as evidence, Rather was still dubious about her veracity. Indeed, as one former CBS News official later put it, Rather saw Flowers as just another Republican plant:
"Dan Rather was convinced that Roger Ailes, who had no formal role in this year's Bush campaign, had in some way inspired the Gennifer Flowers story. When the draft story appeared in the [Wall Street] Journal, Rather wanted to break a story on how the Bush campaign had planted that," wrote CBSer Marty Plissner in his 1999 book The Control Room.
"In CBS's first report on the draft issue, five days after it broke, Rather, who has several writers at his disposal, gave it a headline that absolutely no one else could: ‘Bill Clinton says President Bush's 1989 Willie Horton crowd is smearing him with new campaign dirty tricks.' Rather was not pleased by CBS's failure to scoop the world on this, or on Roger Ailes's supposed planting of the Gennifer Flowers story."
But Rather's journalistic skepticism has somehow vanished now that a Republican politician is being accused of sexual misconduct--just like it did in the case of Rush Limbaugh last week where a CBS reporter referred to the National Enquirer as "published reports."
On Friday, the Evening News featured an incorrect allegation that Schwarzenegger had admired Adolph Hitler. Originally, this story had appeared in the New York Times but was later corrected. But Rather and reporter Jerry Bowen decided to go with the story anyway. Neither made any mention of the fact that the original source for the story later backtracked and said that the Austrian-born actor did not admire Hitler.
Since last Thursday when the Los Angeles Times printed accounts from several women who claim that Schwarzenegger sexually harassed them, Rather's Evening has been all over the story. It's run reports every day on the story and has featured several of the women on the air. Unfortunately, no one at CBS seems to have bothered to check out any of their backgrounds.
It now turns out that at least one of them--Rhonda Miller, who was featured on last night's program--is a liar. Now, we can't fault Rather & co. for not checking out all of these women's backgrounds, but at least they could have mentioned the fact that Miller refused to take questions at her news conference and that she did not provide any witnesses to corroborate her account.
But after his version, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer announced that "in the town of Beiji, north of Baghdad, Saddam's men have rearmed. Over the weekend they took over the town center and set fire to city hall." But that's not all. "On the outskirts American soldiers were following orders to maintain a low profile. They were staying on the sidelines. The trouble is, so were the Iraqi police." In contrast to other more positive reports about Iraqi police throughout the country, that's not what she chose to highlight from Beiji. "The idea lately has been that the Iraqi police should be keeping order. But without any training, bad weapons and no safety gear, they're not only ineffective, they're scared."
Palmer summed it up: "It's just the latest example of the missteps Americans have made from the start in this complex tribal society." To back up her assertion, she quoted an Iraqi from the Iraqi Governing Council who gave a reason for the U.S. alleged failure. In his explanation, he demonstrated an incorrect knowledge of American history.
"They have never ruled any country anywhere outside the United States as a colonial power or occupier or whatever, and so they make many mistakes, I think," said Mahmoud Othman.
It's understandable for an Iraqi to be unaware of America's history of occupations, most notably in Japan, Germany and the Philippines. But for the CBS producers, as well as Elizabeth Palmer, to either knowingly allow the clip without correction, or to not know that is was incorrect, is shameful. It represents for CBS either yet another attempt to sway public opinion or an embarrassing ignorance of American history.
CBS News in Full Limbaugh-Bashing Mode
2003-10-03 12:50:46 ET
As they did last night, both Pitts and Dan Rather refused to allow viewers a chance to hear Limbaugh's defense of his remarks about black quarterback Donovan McNabb. Both anchor and correspondent asserted that Limbaugh was enjoying his predicament. As evidence, Pitts quoted what was meant to be a mild self-confident joke the radio host said in a speech to a broadcasters association meeting.
"Limbaugh said he relished the controversy, and he did not apologize," Rather said introducing Pitts's report.
"Controversy and conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh have been companions for years, but this time it cost him," Pitts began. "Today, at a conference for broadcasters, Limbaugh was unapologetic."
Pitts then ran the following excerpt from a lengthy address in which Limbaugh devoted a significant amount of time to defending his remarks:
"This is the kind of media attention I've lived with for 15 years This is--you know, to me, if this kind of stuff doesn't happen, that's when I wonder if I'm losing it."
After that, Pitts moved on to discuss charges first reported by the National Enquirer that Limbaugh is addicted to prescription medications. While the tabloid has been known to be correct on occasion, it certainly couldn't be classified as a credible source. Not wanting to inform the viewers of the source of the story, Pitts declined to name the newspaper, alluding only to "published reports" even as the screen showed pictures from the Enquirer. He also kept Wednesday's motif of Limbaugh-as-racist:
"Florida law enforcement officials today confirmed Limbaugh is being investigated for illegally buying prescription drugs. In published reports, a former housekeeper claims Limbaugh was addicted to prescription painkillers, including OxyContin, the so called 'hillbilly heroin.'"
We're still waiting for Pitts and Rather to cite "published reports" that aliens live among us and that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian.
This time, Pitts relied on Donny Deutsch, an ad agency owner who also is known for his left-of-center views and is said to be contemplating a run for mayor of New York City. In an interview earlier this year, Deutsch called Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly the "Antichrist" and wondered "does the right wing own the opportunity to be irreverent? Provocative?"
In his appearance on CBS, Deutsch argued that if Limbaugh was guilty it would invalidate everything he'd said before.
"When you've built a career on preaching what a good life is and law and order and toeing the straight line. When... that line that you've been on is not so straight anymore, it's clearly a touch of irony here," Deutsch said (ellipsis in original).
Echoing comments from a liberal ad exec featured on yesterday's Evening News, Dick Meyer, editorial director at CBSNews.com argued that Limbaugh was finally getting his comeuppance for years of anti-black racism:
"Do I like it when the thought police, the language cops and the political correctness enforcers pounce on an utterance and declare it illegal? No, I hate it. Am I delighted to see Rush Limbaugh attacked, ridiculed and forced out of his ESPN gig? Absolutely. Justice is being served," Meyer wrote.
"Limbaugh's public shtick for years and years has had a constant hum of low-grade racism and race baiting," the column continued. "So why did the McNabb remark cause such a frenzy when so many other cracks hadn't? I really don't know. Maybe because it was on TV. Maybe because it was about football and his audience, for a change, was actually knowledgeable about what he was talking about -- and knew that what he was saying was stupid and wrong. I don't know, but as I said, I am delighted."
Introducing a story by Pitts, Rather wondered whether the newly minted ESPN host's remark was racist or just a ratings ploy:
"Still ahead on the CBS Evening News. Were or were not Rush Limbaugh's comments about an NFL player racist, a ratings grab, or both? The inside story next," Rather said before going to a commercial
Back from the break, Rather resumed his narrative:
"Radio star Rush Limbaugh's comments about Philadelphia Eagle Donovan McNabb brought calls today for ESPN to fire the self-described conservative commentator. Limbaugh today denied any racist intent when he claimed the quarterback has been overrated and generally favored by the media because he's black. Limbaugh's denial has caused questions among many people as Byron Pitts reports in tonight's Inside Story."
Pitts followed with a story putatively about Limbaugh's "denial," but somehow managed to avoid quoting from Limbaugh's self-defense (aired hours before Evening's deadline) in which the political talker denied calling McNabb a bad player:
"The comment actually was a comment aimed at the media," said Limbaugh during his Wednesday afternoon radio show. "It's totally understandable that the sports media, having made the case that it's unfair blacks had been denied the quarterback position all these years have a vested interest in their doing well, and so maybe they hype them a little bit more than they actually deserve based on field performance, pure and simple."
As unfair as refusing to give Limbaugh a chance to defend himself was, Pitts went further, associating the commentator with the past injustices faced by black quarterbacks which he had already decried.
"The debate over black quarterbacks isn't new," continued Pitts. "For decades, from little league to college, black ballplayers were discouraged from playing the position. The thinking was they weren't smart enough to succeed."
Finished with that smear, Pitts picked up Rather's earlier point and wondered if Limbaugh was just trying to boost his ratings:
"When it hired Limbaugh, ESPN said it was looking for controversy and higher ratings. With viewership now up 10 percent, they got both. And tonight in statements released by the network, they stand by their man."
While it is possible that Limbaugh and ESPN may have been trying for some sort of ratings ploy, employees of CBS News are hardly qualified to condemn such behavior given the numerous times they have repeatedly indulged in such tactics to boost the perpetually last-place ratings of the CBS Evening News such as teasing upcoming stories with the phrase, "Get ready to be outraged," interviewing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during sweeps weeks, temporarily changing Rather's sign-off, and running montages of late-night jokes. In fact, CBS News has been so desperate to increase viewership for Evening, we had to write an entire report about their attempts.
"I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh," Johnson wrote in an Aug. 25 column. "I just don't need the aggravation. We simply disagree on too many issues. The bombastic, nationally syndicated radio talk show host has pummeled just about anyone who isn't a card-carrying citizen of his vision of good ol' white-bread U.S. of A. That would include feminists, gays, blacks, immigrants."
Unfortunately, while both Rather and Pitts correctly tagged Limbaugh as a conservative, they did not label Johnson in any way. (For further proof of Johnson's political leanings, see his Sept. 26 column praising liberal filmmaker Michael Moore.)
On Monday's CBS Evening News, Rather reported that "the FBI and the Justice Department counterespionage division now say they are investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name. . . there are politically explosive accusations about who might have leaked that name and why, and growing calls for an independent investigation."
The anchor claimed the individual was a CIA operative, and John Roberts, who filed the story, reported that conservative columnist Robert Novak "first published the leak in July, naming the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson as a covert CIA operative." The leak of the name of a CIA operative was just too juicy of a story to be ignored, even if CBS knew that the actual facts contradicted what was in the news report, or that the actual facts were still not known.
To savor the outrage of something so horrible as a top-secret agent losing her cover, Robert's producers interviewed a former CIA director--not mentioning he served under Democrat Jimmy Carter--to express displeasure: "They've endangered the lives of agents of agents overseas. They've endangered the usefulness of a CIA operative."
Throughout all the bluster, Roberts ignored what Novak--whom he had relied on earlier--also had to say, this time two hours before the CBS correspondent's 6:30 deadline. Appearing on the Drudge Report at 4:44 ET, Novak said: "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
No one outside the CIA knows now whether or Plame is an agent or not, but it was unfair and shoddy journalism for Rather and Roberts to ignore Novak's contention.
On Sunday and Monday, American forces won two major engagements and carried out a successful, large-scale raid in northern Iraq to ferret out insurgents. All with only one fatality. Covering these events, Palmer interpreted them to be another sign that Iraqis don't like Americans.
"The fight in Khaldiyah went on for hours, and no matter how many Iraqi rebels were killed or injured, the danger is for the coalition that this will be seen as a heroic battle and will attract fighters from all over the country or even across the border," Palmer said.
"In an all-out effort to break the back of this resistance, US soldiers and Iraqi police joined forces in a sweeping series of raids across northern Iraq and in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Ninety-two Iraqis were arrested, but in the end, all but four were released. Numbers like that show the U.S. military will have to intensify its search if it's to destroy such an elusive enemy."
Missing from Palmer's report is certain important contextual information including the fact that most parts of Iraq seem to be stabilized except for some portions of in north-central where the Sunni minority lives. Several recent polls of Iraqis from disparate sources have shown this to be true, yet neither Palmer nor Rather nor anyone else at the Evening News has reported them. While a few casualties have occurred from time to time, the fact remains that most American troops do not see much combat action and that the majority of the predominant Shiite Muslims support the United States. While such facts may not be as exciting to report, they are nonetheless crucial to understanding the complex situation in Iraq.
CBS's negative reporting hasn't gone unnoticed, though. Palmer and her colleagues' work caught the eye of USA Today television columnist Peter Johnson who interviewed several American journalists who believe their colleagues are overemphasizing negative news. One of these was MSNBC's Bob Arnot who said the U.S. press doesn't report enough on the very positive feelings that most Iraqis have towards Americans.
"I contrast some of the infectious enthusiasm I see here with what I see on TV, and I say, 'Oh, my God, am I in the same country?'"
While acknowledging the threat of increased crime and violence in post-Hussein Iraq, Time's Brian Bennett argued that things are improving. "I'm not saying all is hunky-dory," Bennett said. "But in the States, people have a misperception of what's going on."
But not everyone contacted by Johnson shared the view that Iraq is stabilizing, including CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier who argued that "each time you come back here, it feels more dangerous. We travel everywhere with security. We refer to our hotel as the 'bat cave' because basically you do not go outside without a security guy, a four-wheel-drive vehicle and a planned escape route."
Nor do things appear to be getting better, according to Dozier.
"When I was here right after Baghdad fell, I found a lot of people who were very happy that the Americans had come. Now in places like Tikrit, I expected to find the die-hard Saddam supporters. But what surprised me were the number of ordinary Iraqis, people I spoke to right after the city fell. I speak to them now and they're turning. ... When you start losing the middle class and the educated, I'm just worried about the number of people who are going to follow."
In their coverage of the recall, Dan Rather and CBS have maintained this tradition. Over the weekend, the Gallup Organization released a survey showing very strong support for removing Davis and and Schwarzenegger running well ahead of other candidates. There has been some criticism of the poll as being inaccurate. Appropriately, Rather decided to report on it:
"It's just over a week now till the California recall election," Rather began, "And Democratic governor Gray Davis and Republican challenger Arnold Schwarzenegger now see it as one-on-one combat, no holds barred. And then there's the latest poll that is also in the mix tonight as a subject of controversy, Jerry Bowen reports."
While Rather and Bowen, who has been assigned to cover the recall, mentioned the possibility of the poll being inaccurate (including Davis's objections) neither ever cast doubt on earlier surveys that augured ill for Davis's Republican opponents. In fact, they promoted them.
In mid-September, the Los Angeles Times released a poll which claimed that support for the recall was decreasing and that Schwarzenegger was trailing lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamente by a fair amount. The Times poll was criticized for predicting far lower support for the recall than every prior survey, but instead of mentioning these criticisms, Bowen's Sept. 15 report cast no doubt on the report.
The week previously, Field Research released a poll indicating that lower support for the recall and that female voters were put off by Schwarzenegger. Inspired by a Sept. 9 piece in the New York Times, Rather and Bowen ran a story that same day on "the candidate's latest problem: trouble with women" which completely accepted the Field Poll findings and featured no sound bites from Schwarzenegger or one of his supporters disputing the poll.
The latest survey shunned by the anchor is a Gallup poll of Baghdad citizens taken from late August to early September. The results showed, among other things, that most residents thought eliminating Saddam Hussein was worth the effort. On the day Rather could have mentioned the upbeat poll, he instead chose to trumpet how "a land mine apparently intended for a U.S. Army patrol in Baghdad instead went off as two civilian buses passed."
Writing in Monday's Atlanta Journal Constitution, Marshall blasted the press for "dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded [...] not balancing this bad news with the rest of the story, the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy." See the full article.
"A reminder that television sometimes has trouble with perspective, so you may want to note that in some areas of Iraq, things are peaceful," Rather added.
Creating a Quagmire: CBS's Coverage of Postwar Iraq
2003-09-16 06:26:40 ET
In the time-period from President Bush's May 1 announcement ending major military operations to Sept. 9, of the 183 stories the CBS Evening News has run about events in Iraq, 132 of them (72 percent) have been primarily about setbacks to the American effort, according to the study. Thirty-four reports (20%) focused mainly on positive developments while 17 were largely neutral.
After the president declared an end to 'major combat operations,' many Democrats felt empowered to renew their efforts as the opposition party. Unfortunately, Dan Rather and his colleagues appear to have joined them, said Greg Sheffield, Co-Director of RatherBiased.com. "Someone watching only CBS News is apt to think that Iraq is a complete disaster and that nothing's going right since positive news just isn't getting reported."
See the full report.
A new video featuring the al-Qaeda leader was aired on the Al-Jazeera network earlier this week, and this one had some instructions for Americans. It's not likely very many are doing what he requests, except possibly Dan Rather and others in the media with partisan motives.
Says the voice on the latest video, "We recommend to the mothers of the soldiers, if you like to see your sons, then hasten to ask your government to return them rather than coming back to you in coffins."
The CBS News division has certainly followed the recommendation to "hasten to ask," as well as help family members ask, for the "government to return" soldiers from Iraq.
Tuesday, Sept. 9 is when Rather most recently fulfilled the request, obviously for his own political reasons. He told of how "for the loved ones in those soldiers' hearts and dreams, life on the home front holds its own hardships; families divided by thousands of miles of ocean and...the anxiety of not knowing when or how it will end."
Then correspondent Jane Clayson told a story of one woman who wanted her husband back. "He's been gone almost seven months," Clayson reported.
The wife described how her "world's fallen apart. He's not going to come back for a long time. The situation's bad."
"She was supportive of her husband's service" at first, said Clayson, but "today, she has no hope he'll be back any time soon."
 Rumsfeld and Rather before the interview |
The newsman asked the defense secretary about a Washington Post story "which in essence says that the military top brass and the State Department in effect went around and got a change in policy."
"What is one to make of it?" inquired Rather.
Rumsfeld was disappointed. "You've never seen an article in the newspaper that isn't true? You're a grown adult. You know better than that."
The anchor responded that it's "my job to ask the question." Rumsfeld shot back, "Of course it is, and you can ask it, and I can answer it." Rumsfeld denied the Post allegation.
The next query was one Rather planned in advance by searching out a conservative critic, not a liberal one, of the Bush administration's post-war Iraq strategy.
"No one accuses [him] of not being a Republican. No one accuses him of not being a supporter of President Bush. I want to give you a chance to answer his criticism, and there's no other way to say it."
"You really reached in the duffel bag, Dan."
"Not a duffel bag. It's in the newspapers every day. Maybe you haven't seen it."
"I have."
Rumsfeld dismissed the criticism by conservative Bill Kristol and they moved on. Toward the end of the interview, Rather asked, "What question have I not asked you that I should have asked you?"
"Oh, goodness. You know, I haven't read all the papers you've read so I don't know what other stories you could have drug up and heaved at me like that."
Rather's final question of the session was about rumors of a conflict between the defense secretary and the secretary of state. "Do you get along all right with Secretary Powell?"
"Of course I do."
Rather quipped, "That's the easiest question I've asked you."
Rumsfeld took the anchor to task for listening to rumors. "You're as old as I am. You've been around listening to this nonsense, too." He called Colin Powell a "friend" and a "talented guy," and said the media manufactures these things because "it sells newspapers, it keeps the ratings for the television people." The full text of the interview is available here.
He used John McCain to prove that it was bipartisan criticism, the liberal senator and chief opponent to Governor Bush for the Republican nomination. This is the same John McCain CBS utilizes whenever they want to claim attacks on Bush are not partisan or ideologically motivated, but rather sensible and well thought out.
This time correspondent John Roberts introduced the Arizona senator: "Even some Republicans now charge that the U.S. is spread too thin."
JOHN MCCAIN: When we have to extend Guard and Reservists on active duty, when we have to ask for international forces, when we have to do the things that we are doing, it's clear to me that we need additional troops.
The other criticisms CBS aired were, of course, all from Democrats: Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Rand Beers, a national security advisor for the John Kerry presidential campaign. But that didn't matter, because they had their maverick fig leaf.
Now that the debate has turned to paying for the war in Iraq, CBS News has, once again, aligned itself with Democrats--this time in arguing that President Bush's request for $87 billion is extravagent. Dan Rather and CBS News have championed increased federal spending of over $400 billion on prescription drug subsidies for years (four-and-a-half times more than Bush requested for Iraq and terrorism), so it was quite remarkable to suddenly see them worrying about government waste on Monday's Evening News. Introducing a piece by White House correspondent John Roberts, Rather emphasized the expense of Bush's request:
"Eighty-seven billion dollars minimum--that is what President Bush is asking Americans to spend for the war on terror, mostly in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and around the world," said Rather "Eighty-seven billion dollars--that's $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States, and that is just for the coming year, and it's on top of the $79 billion Congress approved less than six months ago. The president revealed his new price tag in a television address last night, and John Roberts reports the reaction, pro and con, is still coming in."
But Roberts's story did nothing of the sort, focusing solely on objections to Bush's plans. Just as he and everyone else at CBS News did before during the prescription drug debate, Roberts turned exclusively to a liberal think tank for analysis. As before, Roberts decided not to inform viewers of the ideology of his source, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
On the Thursday, Sept. 4 Evening News, Rather did two starkly different stories about post-Saddam Iraq. The first was a one-on-one with an American general in charge of occupying troops; the second piece was about an Iraqi group, shrouded with masks, that claimed responsibility for many of the attacks on U.S. troops in the country. Unfortunately, behavior as expected, Rather devoted more time to the veiled men, despite the fact that he admitted that "there's no way to confirm their claims."
Although it was shameful for Rather to spend more time on the
unsubstantiated claims of men with veils than with one of the most important
figures currently in Iraq, he did allow, without banishing to the cutting
room floor, a criticism of the media that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
made to Rather during their exchange:
LT. GEN. SANCHEZ: I think America needs to be told very clearly by, first of
all, me as a military leader and then by our press that we're not in a
quagmire. The progress is unbelievable....
RATHER: What is, in your judgment, the biggest mistake or inaccuracy that
the press, in general, is making about the situation here?
LT. GEN. SANCHEZ: I'll be very candid with you. It's the fact that the press
does not focus at all on the successes of our great American soldiers and
sailors, airmen and Marines that are operating here in this country.
RATHER: Give me one example of a success that you think is being
underreported.
SANCHEZ: Sir, I could give you a hundred.
RATHER: I'm asking for one.
SANCHEZ: Let me--the Najaf bombing that just occurred at the Ali Mosque.
This was a success in that the Iraqi security forces handled the aftermath
of that bombing on their own. That message is not in America. Independent
elections were being conducted at the village level, at the provincial
level. That's not being reported.
But later on, Rather countered Sanchez's words:
"In spite of what General Ricardo Sanchez told me, that living conditions and security are improving rapidly in Iraq, there are some Iraqis, no one can say how many, who remain willing to use violence to end the U.S. occupation. What you're going to see and hear next is disturbing, even infuriating, but perhaps important. It's a look at men who say they have attacked Americans. There's no way to confirm their claims, but certainly they appear willing to kill and to die to get Americans out of here."
They wore masks, but that didn't cover up their "eyes of hatred." Their eyes were those "of men who say they will do anything it takes to kill Americans and drive them out of Iraq."
More time was devoted to the men with scary eyes than to following up on Lt. Gen. Sanchez's contention.
Hawkins reported on the murder of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim and a hundred others at a mosque in Najaf. But one key element of his story is different from what was reported by the other media outlets.
"Many blame America for his death and want U.S. forces to leave their country."
But according to D'Arcy Doran of the Associated Press on August 29, "The Shiites immediately laid blame on Saddam Hussein loyalists -- chiefly from the rival Sunni Muslim sect and oppressors of the majority Shiites for decades."
It's not clear what David Hawkins is implying, that the U.S. may be responsible for carrying out the bombing, or that the U.S. may not have provided adequate security.
It's true that some Iraqis blamed both the U.S. for lack of protection and Saddam's henchman. AP correspondent Sameer N. Yacoub noted on August 31: "Many Shiites blame the cleric's death on Saddam Hussein loyalists and the U.S.-led coalition, which they say has failed to provide adequate security in the country since the dictator's fall.'
So the blame is not all in one place. But that's the last thing Hawkins would want to report, as it would ruin the impact of his theatrical performance/story about what Rather introduces as a "bombing that threatens a new civil war."
Here is Hawkins's alarm. Next week something else will catch his fancy:
"Their grief is immeasurable, their anger's intense. The ayatollah preached patience with the U.S.-led occupation, but his followers' patience is running out. They want their own army. In fact, they already have one, the Badr Brigade... They say they're not looking for a fight now, but if the coalition soldiers can't protect them, they've no choice but to protect themselves."
A Friday press release issued by the military quoted Defense Department Donald Rumsfeld saying that "important good news" was being ignored by the news media. "If one looks back at Germany or Japan or Bosnia or Kosovo and measures the progress that has taken place in this country in four or five months, it dwarfs any other experience that I'm aware of," Rumsfeld said.
The dispute began after the Catholic World News alleged that Gonzalez was incorrect in stating that a 1962 policy directive issued by the Vatican established a strategy to keep all sexual misconduct secret. The church maintains that the document was much more narrow in scope and dealt "exclusively" with priests accused of soliciting sexual favors during confessionals.
In a follow-up report aired on the Aug. 8 CBS Evening News, Gonzalez conceded that the piece did deal with confessionals, but said that it was more expansive than his critics alleged.
After the Aug. 8 piece aired, Jeff Cavins, who hosts a Catholic-oriented radio program and was quoted in the second report, charged CBS with distorting his remarks and making it seem he was angry at the church, rather than at Gonzalez's reporting. Cavins provided his listeners with telephone numbers for CBS and asked them to call in and voice their concerns.
The Minneapolis-based radio host is among several prominent Catholics who have called for the dismissal of Gonzalez and his producers for "Catholic-bashing" and promoting a "total lie" which other news organizations were able to see through.
"Ever wonder why the New York Times and most of the other elite media outlets never wrote one word about this report?" William Donahue of the Catholic League said in a letter to Evening News producer Jim Murphy. "Nothing in the [1962] document even comes close to demonstrating the validity of this scurrilous charge. If Vince Gonzales et al. worked for me, I'd fire them."
"Other networks have come on the air every day and they give you a countdown or count-up of the bad things that have happened--whether it's military deaths or civilian deaths," said Bill Shine, who oversees primetime shows at the cable channel. "That is important, and it's news America should know. But, there is some progress going on in that country."
Jim Murphy, executive producer of the CBS Evening News, rejected the idea that his show was overly negative toward the war compared to FNC and NBC. (NBC's Nightly News program has also recorded increased ratings during the past three years.)
"I think that reality can get to viewers at times, but I don't think our coverage is negative or relentlessly negative. We tell people what we have. Some days it's negative, some days it's not," said Murphy.
Murphy argued that viewers were taking time off from following stressful news but would come back later.
"People have been through two years of very heavy-duty, stressful news, from Sept. 11 through the war with Iraq. I think there's probably just a little bit of a break-taking going on across the spectrum," said Murphy.
"People come to watch the news when they need the news--and they will need it again."
But Murphy did not explain how his theory squared with the fact that the Rather-led program has lost viewers in the past three years, even during the Iraq campaign when all other TV news programs saw increased ratings.
For more on the CBS-Fox News feud see "CBS vs. Fox."
"Nobody ever said that CBS News did not want to include blacks," CBS flack Andy Silvers told the conservative news site, NewsMax.com. "We wanted to look at everyone." The Web site noted that RatherBiased.com's report--released on July 30--was further proof of charges made by former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, that despite the fact that CBS News is run by liberals, it nonetheless dislikes featuring blacks in reports--especially poor blacks. The former newsman said it's because those inside CBS believe viewers are not interested in hearing stories about "stereotypical" low-income blacks.
Thirty years later, John Roberts is trying to do all he can to prove he can look just as hard-hitting, to show that he, too, is willing to take on a Republican president. Through his reporting and behavior at the July 30 Bush news conference, the newly brown-haired journalist is trying to earn his stripes.
On the July 30 CBS Evening News, Dan Rather told viewers about the news conference where Bush "for the first time" took responsibility for the "now-discredited" claim about Iraq and uranium. (Even though the British government still stands by the claim, and the U.S. government isn't sure of its validity, Rather is certain it's bogus.)
The anchor turned it over to Roberts at the White House. "CBS's John Roberts is there. John?"
Roberts reported that he himself asked Bush a question and that the president tried to dodge his penetrating inquiry. "When asked by this reporter why he took the world to war on what critics say was shaky evidence, Mr. Bush promptly changed the subject."
To prove the point, Roberts played a short, 28-word clip that was taken from the 300+ words the president used to reply to his question.
GEORGE W. BUSH: ...people of the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.
Based on these 28 words where Bush was not talking about weapons of mass destruction, Roberts proclaimed, "It was a clear example of how the White House is shifting the goalposts on Iraq: from weapons as a rationale for war to liberating the Iraqi people to now promoting global security."
But that was far from the truth. Contrary to Roberts's pronoucement that the president had "promptly changed the subject," Bush did address his query.
Here are 50 words from the president's response to John Roberts, although we certainly won't say that these alone represent his opinion in its entirety:
"We gathered a lot of intelligence. That intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision.[...] And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program.[...] I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision. (read the entire news conference)
So Bush did not try to change the subject and avoid charges of "shaky evidence." At the end of the president's explanation, Roberts demanded another question, even though Bush had already given him more than 300 words and addressed his complaint. The president silenced him: "Hold on for a second. You're through."
Sloppy, biased White House reporting by John Roberts? Sounds just like the old Dan Rather.
In Hunt for Suitable Subjects, CBS Rejects Blacks
Email Reveals Collusion with Liberal Thinktank
2003-07-30 04:19:34 ET
 |
| Joan Golder is the perfect type of person CBS producers were seeking. She was featured on a July 28 segment entitled "Seniors Sour Over Prime Rate Cuts." |
Written by Karen Conner, a senior media coordinator for the Economic Policy Institute, the email was disseminated at the request of CBS News, calling for individuals to appear in an Evening News series called "Making Ends Meet." The network billed it as a "month-long look at the unemployment crisis in America."
A number of topics had already been covered in the broadcasts since July 7, but by last week, CBS News was looking for people in need of government assistance but who were ineligible in some way. A producer at the Evening News asked Conner to get the word out to people who fit the qualifications.
"They seek to interview individual, single parent, or family who went from welfare to work, and then to being unemployed without any safety net," Conner wrote in her message.
CBS was looking for people who "are not eligible for unemployment insurance, and/or they hit their limit for receiving welfare benefits."
There was one other requirement: applicants could not be black. "Reporter prefers the individual/family NOT be African-American."
Asked about the exclusion, Conner said that her liaison at the network thought that featuring black Americans down on their luck would ruin the impact of the story.
"The producer said she didn't want it to come off badly," the spokeswoman explained. "She said she didn't want the report to further the stereotype that only African-Americans are on welfare or are the only ones who need it."
CBS Knew of Featured Activist's Background, Declined to Tell Viewers
2003-07-28 14:39:20 ET
In an interview, Mary Hager, a producer with the CBS Evening News who works primarily with Capitol Hill correspondent Joie Chen, said that CBS News knew of activist Viola Quirion's background but claimed that it had informed viewers of it in an earlier report.
"Yes, we knew that. But we had pointed out her background during an earlier piece that we aired earlier this year," Hager said. She did not say how viewers of Friday's Evening News would have remembered an identification from months earlier.
Despite this claim, however, CBS News has never told viewers of Quirion's past and when presented with evidence proving this, Hager backed off, saying that CBS had identified Quirion in a story which was produced but never aired. When presented with other reports in which CBS failed to disclose Quirion's background, Hager claimed she was not familiar with them.
"I didn't do that May 19th piece," Hager said, referring to a piece by CBS correspondent Cynthia Bowers which featured Quirion. "I don't know if I did the other one since I don't produce every one of Joie Chen's reports."
Asked if she or her colleagues had erred in portraying Quirion and several other liberal activists as common citizens, Hager became defensive.
"You're giving me a hard time about something that I try very hard to be careful about," Hager said. She did not respond when asked why CBS has not featured any elderly Americans who oppose federal subsidies for fear of losing their more desirable private pension plans. When RatherBiased.com asked Hager if she would agree with NBC News's statement that not labeling activists is wrong, Hager terminated the connection, citing pressing business.
While Hager would not admit error, in an earlier interview with CNSNews.com, Quirion said the network "probably" should have informed viewers of her political activities (which include testifying before Congress), even though no one from CBS ever asked her about them.
"I just got interviewed and answered their questions and that's it," Quirion said. "They didn't ask anything about it and I didn't mention anything.
Prescription drug subsidies is not the first political issue where Rather and his colleagues have portrayed liberal activists as average people, however. While covering the Million Mom March in May of 2000, the CBS Evening News twice featured organizer Donna Dees-Thomases, a former aide to two Democratic senators, sister of Hillary Clinton's top political adviser, as well as a former publicist for Dan Rather. During both of her appearances, viewers were never told of Dees-Thomases's background.
2003-07-30 12:32:16 ET: CBS News has released the following statement regarding its portrayal of liberal activists as average citizens:
"If we know that someone is deeply involved in a political organization, then we should identify them as such."
Rather Ignores Clinton's Support of Bush
2003-07-25 23:07:45 ET
In a July 22 telephone call to CNN's Larry King Live, Clinton lent support to President Bush, saying that he believed the news media were dwelling too much on an overblown story. The former president also urged the media to consider more important topics.
"Mr. Fleischer said that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech," Clinton said. "I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?
"We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq," Clinton said. "The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."
Despite the newsworthiness of Clinton's comments, Dan Rather has decided to ignore them, while his colleagues at NBC, CNN, FNC, and all of the wire services and major papers have covered them. Rather has chosen to disregard Clinton's current statements, but he did not do so back when then-president Clinton was urging the media to move on from discussing his impeachment.
At that time, Rather was very sympathetic to such sentiments. Talking to his colleague Bob Schieffer at the start of the Senate trial, Rather wondered if anyone in Washington was sensing that "there's other very important business that needs to be attended to? Saddam Hussein has his aircraft in the air threatening U.S. fighting men and women in the military. There are questions about Social Security, what to do about health care. There's a long line of the people's business that seems to have been put aside and apparently is going to be put aside for weeks if not months now." (For more quotes of Rather wanting to "move on" from impeachment, see Clinton's Impeachment.)
Roberts is now in a period of his life that Dan Rather went through earlier in his career. Rather's sometimes fill-in anchor decided to dye his hair brown for an appearance on the White House lawn, a stark shift from the grey he's allowed viewers to see him with for some years. Rather went through the same routine, although because of his position, the pattern was much more publicized. His hair would change from grey to brown to grey again, keeping the T.V. critics--with nothing else to write about given the then-small choice of programming--wondering.
Rather introduced Roberts's story about the latest. "Word that Saddam's notorious sons had also been killed was especially welcome news at the White House. But it wasn't the only news there today. CBS's John Roberts is at the White House. John?"
Roberts began, "Dan, President Bush was elated at today's news, saying it was a positive step for the Iraqi people. It was also a bright spot for the President after what's been a terrible couple of weeks dealing with this issue of Iraq and uranium."
The brown-headed fifty-something spoke as if he himself had nothing to do with it. It's "been a terrible couple of weeks," he said, although in saying that he hoped to extend it for a few more weeks.
Recently retired White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who served since the beginning of the Bush administration, was asked by David Letterman about how long the flap would last.
LETTERMAN: When something like this happens, a little eruption like this...is this the kind of thing that people panic? How long will the story be around, will this be around another month, another six weeks? Will the Democrats make something out of this, or will it go away?
FLEISCHER: Well, the way it works is, I think, these stories last as long as the press wants them to last. The White House can't control it, it's up to the press.
Roberts, for his part, has determined to keep this alive for all it's worth. Closing his report, he was as excited as ever.
"So, in just a week this has gone from the buck stops at the CIA to the buck now stopping at the highest levels of the White House. And you can be sure, Dan, that the President's critics won't let it stop there."
The President's critics, both official Democrats and unofficial ones at CBS, have already decided that the blame won't stop "at the highest levels of the White House," but will go all the way to the top. Roberts reported on July 10 that Bush made a "false claim about Iraqi weapons; he made it despite a CIA warning the intelligence was bad." Bush, he says, blatantly chose to "despite" being properly warned. The CBS News Web site also added, "Bush knew Iraq info was dubious."
CBS Uncertain if Iraqis Happy About Deaths of Hussein Sons
2003-07-23 16:02:35 ET
"We're not certain if these are shots of anger or jubilation or a combination of both. But it remains a night like this city has not seen since the days leading up to the fall of Baghdad nearly four months ago."
Unless he had stayed in his hotel all day, Pitts had to have known that those shots were indeed celebratory as Reuters, Associated Press, ABC, CNN, NBC, and Sky News all reported. Even CBS News's Web site declined to convey Pitts's incorrect view.
After getting the gunfire in Baghdad wrong, Pitts went out on another limb. Finishing his rooftop segment in Baghdad, the CBS reporter proceeded to garble his facts about the reaction in the Iraqi town where Hussein's sons were killed:
"Tracer fire, the rattle of AK-47s. Much of this reaction may have been joy, but not in Mosul.
"In this former Saddam stronghold, it was all anger. Crowds pelted U.S. soldiers with rocks--and the soldiers fired back."
What's wrong here? Well first off, as a city in northern Iraq, Mosul has always been a stronghold of the Kurds, the most prominent ethnic group that opposed the Husseins' rule. While there is a fairly large Arab population in the area, the Hussein brothers likely sought refuge there because it is "the most peaceful Sunni-dominated city in northern Iraq," according to the Baltimore Sun.
Pitts obviously wasn't in Mosul either, because his account of the local reaction is completely wrong. According to reporters who were there on the scene, the reaction to the firefight that killed Hussein's sons was far from "all anger." Many Kurds who witnessed the gunplay were quite jubilant about the deaths of Uday and Qusay. Some were ambivalent, according to the AP, while others appeared to be saddened. But no journalist who was in Mosul has reported anything about rocks being thrown. This makes sense since to throw stones at American soldiers who have just blown up a building with the aid of helicopter gunships is a ludicrous idea.
The only journalist we could find in our searching of wire services, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet to report this erroneous information was Dan Rather in his teaser segment at the top of the Evening News in which the anchor asserted that "as word spreads, some Iraqis celebrate with gun fire. Others take aim at American troops."
For all the fuss Dan Rather and CBS have made of late about "bum information" being presented to the public by the Bush administration about alleged Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium, we wonder if CBS will bother apologizing for Pitts's clearly incorrect reporting.
Instead of being candid, Heyward chose to maintain his usual standard of never admitting to anything. On CBS's covert offers to the former Iraqi POW, Heyward maintained he and his associates had done nothing wrong in their requests other than needing to "formulate it differently."
On the ratings front,
 |
| The dejected faces of CBS News president Andrew Heyward (left), correspondents Mika Brzezinski, Jim Axelrod, Steve Hartman, and John Roberts look on as correspondent Byron Pitts (onscreen) tries to explain another year of failure at the Evening News. |
"The program journalistically, in my view, is excellent," Heyward maintained. "Dan has had a fantastic year. The program itself has been nominated for six Emmys, significantly more than any of its competitors."
When pressed to identify way the show could improve, Heyward remarked that it might focus more on "showcasing what's different about our program, what separates it from its competitors."
If that's the only area Heyward thinks the show needs improvement in, perhaps CBS should look to someone else who will do more than try to maintain his job security. Heyward's persistent sycophancy to his anchorman has made him a joke within the television industry, according to television critic Gary Dretzka:
"How blind do you have to be not to see that Danimal, while still admirably earnest, now can only be watched for the occasional bizarre sign-off or homespun analogy?" Dretzka writes at the television site TV Barn. "It's like being in the same room with an old friend, while he's undergoing a prostate exam ... at once painful and embarrassing."
"It's cool nuggets of essential information like this [Heyward's statement] that makes me think someone ought to consider streaming the semi-annual luaus, staged by the Television Critics Association, live to the public. You can't buy comedy this good, especially on CBS."
"Maybe that went over the line. That was not respecting, possibly, the sanctity of CBS News," Moonves said at a television critics' meeting. "As these companies become more and more vertically integrated, you know, sometimes you do go over the line."
Whether the historically bellicose news division will apologize remains to be seen.
Despite it being such a rare event (Blair is just the fourth British PM to do so and the first since Thatcher in 1985), CBS correspondent John Roberts only mentioned the visit in passing in his report last night. In total, he selected only 40 seconds of soundbites from the combined 66 minutes of Blair's (and Bush's) public remarks.
Roberts spent most of his time on the disputed sixteen-word sentence from George Bush's State of the Union address about alleged Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The phrase from the speech is obviously disputed, some believe the intel is valid and others invalid. But to Roberts, the information was "discredited." Clearly, the aspiring anchor has info the rest of us don't have, including the world's spy agencies.
Roberts's story and Rather's intro totaled almost three minutes about Bush and Blair (however tainted the piece was). Even more important to CBS, though, were stories of spouses, parents, and even soldiers complaining about the morality of going to war or the length of the tour of duty in Iraq. Rather and his cohorts devoted over four minutes of their broadcast time to such stories.
Reporter Mark Strassmann began his piece, "At Ft. Stewart Thursday morning, another thousand soldiers came home from Iraq to a joyous celebration." At this point he could have done a story about one of the hundreds or thousands of happy families newly reunited. Instead, he sought out the anomaly. "Yet for Spreanna Pomroy's family, someone else's homecoming is pure pain."
Says the young military wife, "It's the most depressing thing you can see. You want to be one of those wives taking your soldier home." Strassmann explains, "Specialist Nathan Pomroy, gone for nine months in Iraq, feels stuck there, as his letters from the battlefield make clear: 'I want my life back. I have no one right now.'"
Stories about complaining women from Ft. Stewart came to 1:42. And there was more to come.
Rather gave a preview: "Next on the CBS Evening News: A father mourns a son killed in Iraq. Whom does he blame? One man--- but not the enemy."
CBS's London Correspondent, Tom Fenton (from one of the last CBS News bureaus standing), profiled a British man who blames Tony Blair for the death of his 18-year-old son who served in Iraq.
"Do you feel that your son's life was lost in vain, or not lost in a noble cause?"
"My son's life can never be said it was lost in vain. He gave 100 percent. I am saying that my country--or my Prime Minister--did not give my son 100 hundred percent.
The complaining Englishman was awarded two minutes and 30 seconds, bringing the total of minutes devoted to next-of-kin unhappy with their respective governments to well more than those given to Blair's historic congressional appearance and joint news conference with Bush.
Letterman then wondered how long the stories would last:
LETTERMAN: When something like this happens, a little eruption like this?-and everybody [the presidential entourage] was in Africa-?is this the kind of thing that people panic? How long will the story be around, will this be around another month, another six weeks? Will the Democrats make something out of this, or will it go away?
FLEISCHER: Well, the way it works is, I think, these stories last as long as the press wants them to last. The White House can't control it, it's up to the press.
LETTERMAN: Right.
FLEISCHER: Every day if they ask about it, they can always say, "The White House today was asked about..." Well, they asked. That's how it works.
It's not clear who's right about whether or not the intelligence in question is correct. But it's obvious that, as Fleischer says, for Dan Rather and his colleagues, stories about the disputed intelligence will last "as long as the press wants them to last."
A day earlier, July 16, CBS's Roberts illustrated Fleischer's point in yet another report detailing what this time he called "dubious" information about Iraq and nuclear weapons.
"President Bush has yet to quell the flap over his now-dubious assertion that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. [...] And an appearance on Capitol Hill today by the CIA director, who took the blame for the mistake, only fanned a fire the White House had hoped to put out."
But based on what Viola Quirion, who has testified before Congress and been involved in legal disputes with pharmaceutical companies, told the Web site CNSNews.com, apparently nobody at CBS even bothered to ask:
"I just got interviewed and answered their questions and that's it," she said. "They didn't ask anything about it and I didn't mention anything."
For more on Quirion and the other activists featured by CBS, see our earlier report.
CBS News Claims Bush Himself, Not Aides, Lied
2003-07-13 12:45:15 ET ET
During the flare-up over a disputed phrase about Iraqi nuclear efforts that was based on British intelligence (which UK sources still insist is true) and appeared in President Bush's State of the Union address, a story CBS News proudly claims as an "exclusive," CBS correspondents have lusted after the item and done exactly what one of their reporters, Jim Stewart, said of the Democratic presidential candidates: "Democrats are now smelling blood over the issue."
Of course, as the story has progressed, they've had to amend what they report, softening the allegations. At first, anchor John Roberts proclaimed at the top of the July 10 program: "CBS News exclusive: President Bush's false claim about Iraqi weapons; he made it despite a CIA warning the intelligence was bad."
With Roberts calling it "Bush's false claim" and declaring "he made it despite" a CIA warning, the anchor implied that the president knowingly lied. But that only implies. On the CBSNews.com Web site, it went much further: "Bush knew Iraq info was dubious."
Not the White House staff, not speech writers, not the CIA, but Bush himself. The smell of blood was just too great, as it was for Democratic presidential candidate and Florida senator Bob Graham, who made the same allegation: "This is not an issue of George Tenet. This is an issue of George Bush."
But a few days later when reporting on Sunday morning news show appearances, CBS was forced to admit that the White House still stood by the excerpt. "Administration officials insisted Sunday that President Bush's disputed statement about Iraqi uranium shopping in Africa was accurate."
This is a far cry from what Pentagon correspondent David Martin quipped about the "disputed statement" on July 8. "In one of the most important speeches of his presidency, George Bush used bum information."
Should the DoD press office continue to admit CBS "Pentagon correspondent" David Martin into its midst? Should he be rewarded for gross bias and snide remarks? Perhaps someone else at CBS should be permitted into the briefing room, someone with a regard for objectivity and a disinterest in the story at hand.
"Peter Jennings has announced that he will finally be a U.S. citizen. In a related story, Dan Rather has announced that he is from the planet Trilar." After some in the audience didn't get the joke, he added, "You know he's a freak."
Drug Pushers: CBS's Biased Medicare Coverage
2003-07-02 02:16:18 ET ET
In reality, the exposure of ABC and CBS's double featuring of Eva Baer-Shenkein was but the discovery of the tip of an iceberg for Baer-Shenkein was but one of several individuals who have been featured by multiple news outlets multiple times. Our latest case study of CBS News demonstrates how one network has crossed the line from observing to advocacy through disingenuous profiles of political activists posing as innocent victims, a total blackout on conservative policy analysts, and on-air editorializing.
By such tactics, CBS News has succeeded in creating a climate that has stifled debate over the biggest expansion of government in decades. Whether it has done so out of a liberal bias, a deliberate pandering to its aged viewers or a desire for government subsidies of its biggest advertisers or some combination is hard to say. But what is clear is that Dan Rather and his colleagues have severely damaged their reputation for objectivity by their persistently unfair coverage of prescription drugs.
Realizing the accuracy of the point we made last year in our report about CBS's efforts, News Division president Andrew Heyward tried to shift the blame from the 71-year-old elephant in the room who is the managing editor and star of the program:
"I don't think it's something to be overly concerned about," Heyward said. "I think the program itself journalistically is as good as it has ever been. [...] He's one of the best broadcast journalists ever. I don't think he's the issue."
Far from convincing anyone, however, Heyward's comments merely demonstrate his willingness to lie publicly to save his hide from Rather, who has succeeded in getting previous CBS News presidents fired for irritating him.
Too bad Heyward didn't take the advice we gave him after we exposed what he and Rather were doing to dumb down the news:
"So will any of CBS's efforts pay off? Perhaps. But likely not. The network still hasn't addressed CEN's three biggest problems: an ancient anchorman, liberal bias, and weird histrionics."
The first story began with a Rather intro: "Bob Orr reports what exactly the court decided on this deeply felt matter."
Orr began his report by announcing that "the Supreme Court found the University of Michigan's law school admission policies were legal and key to creating a diverse student body." He then showed different reactions to the decision, as well as the two justices speaking for the majority and the minority.
Orr's story was actually somewhat balanced--at least more so than many others--with 73 words in favor of affirmative action and 58 words against it. Although it was nearly balanced in words, there was another way in which the CBS producers were able to better get their views across. When Orr quoted what Justice Scalia of the "conservative wing" of the court had to say about the ruling, an unpleasant clip of him abruptly gesticulating and with a sour expression was played. But when reading a quote from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor representing the 5-4 majority, pleasant footage of her smiling cheerfully was showed. Both clips likely occurred months--if not years--ago, and were carefully selected by the producers from the CBS News video archive.
The first story apparently had too many words from the conservative perspective. To Dan Rather, 73 to 58 likely cuts it too close, especially with an issue like affirmative action. To make up for this narrow margin, the second racial story (by Cynthia Bowers) of the night was entirely about the benefits of affirmative action and how for one woman it "changed her life."
CBS's ever-aging anchor introduced the report with an obligatory phrase, one he cut short as soon as possible: The rulings "were strongly criticized by some people," he admitted. But they were six words too many, and immediately he countered them with, "But they were applauded by many others, including current students and by former students of an earlier generation."
Cynthia Bowers then profiled a black woman who "became one of 500 black students recruited" to attend the University of Illinois-Champaign in 1968. Bowers asked her, "What would you say to Americans who are still on the fence about affirmative action?"
"We deserve it. We need it. Affirmative action gives students or people who have been left out of the mainstream an opportunity if they want it."
Bowers closed her report with, "Despite today's mixed ruling, Williams remains convinced affirmative action is here to stay."
"Maybe that went over the line. That was not respecting, possibly, the sanctity of CBS News," Moonves said at a television critics' meeting. "As these companies become more and more vertically integrated, you know, sometimes you do go over the line."
Whether the historically bellicose news division will apologize remains to be seen.
Despite it being such a rare event (Blair is just the fourth British PM to do so and the first since Thatcher in 1985), CBS correspondent John Roberts only mentioned the visit in passing in his report last night. In total, he selected only 40 seconds of soundbites from the combined 66 minutes of Blair's (and Bush's) public remarks.
Roberts spent most of his time on the disputed sixteen-word sentence from George Bush's State of the Union address about alleged Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The phrase from the speech is obviously disputed, some believe the intel is valid and others invalid. But to Roberts, the information was "discredited." Clearly, the aspiring anchor has info the rest of us don't have, including the world's spy agencies.
Roberts's story and Rather's intro totaled almost three minutes about Bush and Blair (however tainted the piece was). Even more important to CBS, though, were stories of spouses, parents, and even soldiers complaining about the morality of going to war or the length of the tour of duty in Iraq. Rather and his cohorts devoted over four minutes of their broadcast time to such stories.
Reporter Mark Strassmann began his piece, "At Ft. Stewart Thursday morning, another thousand soldiers came home from Iraq to a joyous celebration." At this point he could have done a story about one of the hundreds or thousands of happy families newly reunited. Instead, he sought out the anomaly. "Yet for Spreanna Pomroy's family, someone else's homecoming is pure pain."
Says the young military wife, "It's the most depressing thing you can see. You want to be one of those wives taking your soldier home." Strassmann explains, "Specialist Nathan Pomroy, gone for nine months in Iraq, feels stuck there, as his letters from the battlefield make clear: 'I want my life back. I have no one right now.'"
Stories about complaining women from Ft. Stewart came to 1:42. And there was more to come.
Rather gave a preview: "Next on the CBS Evening News: A father mourns a son killed in Iraq. Whom does he blame? One man--- but not the enemy."
CBS's London Correspondent, Tom Fenton (from one of the last CBS News bureaus standing), profiled a British man who blames Tony Blair for the death of his 18-year-old son who served in Iraq.
"Do you feel that your son's life was lost in vain, or not lost in a noble cause?"
"My son's life can never be said it was lost in vain. He gave 100 percent. I am saying that my country--or my Prime Minister--did not give my son 100 hundred percent.
The complaining Englishman was awarded two minutes and 30 seconds, bringing the total of minutes devoted to next-of-kin unhappy with their respective governments to well more than those given to Blair's historic congressional appearance and joint news conference with Bush.
Letterman then wondered how long the stories would last:
LETTERMAN: When something like this happens, a little eruption like this?-and everybody [the presidential entourage] was in Africa-?is this the kind of thing that people panic? How long will the story be around, will this be around another month, another six weeks? Will the Democrats make something out of this, or will it go away?
FLEISCHER: Well, the way it works is, I think, these stories last as long as the press wants them to last. The White House can't control it, it's up to the press.
LETTERMAN: Right.
FLEISCHER: Every day if they ask about it, they can always say, "The White House today was asked about..." Well, they asked. That's how it works.
It's not clear who's right about whether or not the intelligence in question is correct. But it's obvious that, as Fleischer says, for Dan Rather and his colleagues, stories about the disputed intelligence will last "as long as the press wants them to last."
A day earlier, July 16, CBS's Roberts illustrated Fleischer's point in yet another report detailing what this time he called "dubious" information about Iraq and nuclear weapons.
"President Bush has yet to quell the flap over his now-dubious assertion that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. [...] And an appearance on Capitol Hill today by the CIA director, who took the blame for the mistake, only fanned a fire the White House had hoped to put out."
But based on what Viola Quirion, who has testified before Congress and been involved in legal disputes with pharmaceutical companies, told the Web site CNSNews.com, apparently nobody at CBS even bothered to ask:
"I just got interviewed and answered their questions and that's it," she said. "They didn't ask anything about it and I didn't mention anything."
For more on Quirion and the other activists featured by CBS, see our earlier report.
CBS News Claims Bush Himself, Not Aides, Lied
2003-07-13 12:45:15 ET ET
During the flare-up over a disputed phrase about Iraqi nuclear efforts that was based on British intelligence (which UK sources still insist is true) and appeared in President Bush's State of the Union address, a story CBS News proudly claims as an "exclusive," CBS correspondents have lusted after the item and done exactly what one of their reporters, Jim Stewart, said of the Democratic presidential candidates: "Democrats are now smelling blood over the issue."
Of course, as the story has progressed, they've had to amend what they report, softening the allegations. At first, anchor John Roberts proclaimed at the top of the July 10 program: "CBS News exclusive: President Bush's false claim about Iraqi weapons; he made it despite a CIA warning the intelligence was bad."
With Roberts calling it "Bush's false claim" and declaring "he made it despite" a CIA warning, the anchor implied that the president knowingly lied. But that only implies. On the CBSNews.com Web site, it went much further: "Bush knew Iraq info was dubious."
Not the White House staff, not speech writers, not the CIA, but Bush himself. The smell of blood was just too great, as it was for Democratic presidential candidate and Florida senator Bob Graham, who made the same allegation: "This is not an issue of George Tenet. This is an issue of George Bush."
But a few days later when reporting on Sunday morning news show appearances, CBS was forced to admit that the White House still stood by the excerpt. "Administration officials insisted Sunday that President Bush's disputed statement about Iraqi uranium shopping in Africa was accurate."
This is a far cry from what Pentagon correspondent David Martin quipped about the "disputed statement" on July 8. "In one of the most important speeches of his presidency, George Bush used bum information."
Should the DoD press office continue to admit CBS "Pentagon correspondent" David Martin into its midst? Should he be rewarded for gross bias and snide remarks? Perhaps someone else at CBS should be permitted into the briefing room, someone with a regard for objectivity and a disinterest in the story at hand.
"Peter Jennings has announced that he will finally be a U.S. citizen. In a related story, Dan Rather has announced that he is from the planet Trilar." After some in the audience didn't get the joke, he added, "You know he's a freak."
Drug Pushers: CBS's Biased Medicare Coverage
2003-07-02 02:16:18 ET ET
In reality, the exposure of ABC and CBS's double featuring of Eva Baer-Shenkein was but the discovery of the tip of an iceberg for Baer-Shenkein was but one of several individuals who have been featured by multiple news outlets multiple times. Our latest case study of CBS News demonstrates how one network has crossed the line from observing to advocacy through disingenuous profiles of political activists posing as innocent victims, a total blackout on conservative policy analysts, and on-air editorializing.
By such tactics, CBS News has succeeded in creating a climate that has stifled debate over the biggest expansion of government in decades. Whether it has done so out of a liberal bias, a deliberate pandering to its aged viewers or a desire for government subsidies of its biggest advertisers or some combination is hard to say. But what is clear is that Dan Rather and his colleagues have severely damaged their reputation for objectivity by their persistently unfair coverage of prescription drugs.
Realizing the accuracy of the point we made last year in our report about CBS's efforts, News Division president Andrew Heyward tried to shift the blame from the 71-year-old elephant in the room who is the managing editor and star of the program:
"I don't think it's something to be overly concerned about," Heyward said. "I think the program itself journalistically is as good as it has ever been. [...] He's one of the best broadcast journalists ever. I don't think he's the issue."
Far from convincing anyone, however, Heyward's comments merely demonstrate his willingness to lie publicly to save his hide from Rather, who has succeeded in getting previous CBS News presidents fired for irritating him.
Too bad Heyward didn't take the advice we gave him after we exposed what he and Rather were doing to dumb down the news:
"So will any of CBS's efforts pay off? Perhaps. But likely not. The network still hasn't addressed CEN's three biggest problems: an ancient anchorman, liberal bias, and weird histrionics."
The first story began with a Rather intro: "Bob Orr reports what exactly the court decided on this deeply felt matter."
Orr began his report by announcing that "the Supreme Court found the University of Michigan's law school admission policies were legal and key to creating a diverse student body." He then showed different reactions to the decision, as well as the two justices speaking for the majority and the minority.
Orr's story was actually somewhat balanced--at least more so than many others--with 73 words in favor of affirmative action and 58 words against it. Although it was nearly balanced in words, there was another way in which the CBS producers were able to better get their views across. When Orr quoted what Justice Scalia of the "conservative wing" of the court had to say about the ruling, an unpleasant clip of him abruptly gesticulating and with a sour expression was played. But when reading a quote from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor representing the 5-4 majority, pleasant footage of her smiling cheerfully was showed. Both clips likely occurred months--if not years--ago, and were carefully selected by the producers from the CBS News video archive.
The first story apparently had too many words from the conservative perspective. To Dan Rather, 73 to 58 likely cuts it too close, especially with an issue like affirmative action. To make up for this narrow margin, the second racial story (by Cynthia Bowers) of the night was entirely about the benefits of affirmative action and how for one woman it "changed her life."
CBS's ever-aging anchor introduced the report with an obligatory phrase, one he cut short as soon as possible: The rulings "were strongly criticized by some people," he admitted. But they were six words too many, and immediately he countered them with, "But they were applauded by many others, including current students and by former students of an earlier generation."
Cynthia Bowers then profiled a black woman who "became one of 500 black students recruited" to attend the University of Illinois-Champaign in 1968. Bowers asked her, "What would you say to Americans who are still on the fence about affirmative action?"
"We deserve it. We need it. Affirmative action gives students or people who have been left out of the mainstream an opportunity if they want it."
Bowers closed her report with, "Despite today's mixed ruling, Williams remains convinced affirmative action is here to stay."
The episode has become a pop-culture phenomenon. The rock group R.E.M. named a song after the phrase, and Rather himself even appeared onstage to sing it with the group during a Letterman appearance. The words "what's the frequency" and "Kenneth" are some of the most searched-for by people who arrive at our site.
First came the song, and now comes the play.
In the December 2001 issue of Harper's Magazine, Paul Allman wrote an essay in which he theorized about the motive behind the attack. There are two differing accounts of the storyone wonders whythe first in which Rather is attacked by a single disturbed man and another in which he is accosted by a duo. The Allman article subscribes to the second version, and so does Ian Allen, who wrote a play based on the essay.
Allen is a playwright and the artistic director for Cherry Red Productions, a Washington-based theater company that prides itself in outlandish productions. His new play delves into the famous assault and is entitled, naturally, "Kenneth, What Is the Frequency?"
Promoting the play (runs until July 26), the Cherry Red Web site says the Harper's exposé it relies on is intriguing because it reveals, among other things, that a character named "Kenneth" and the words "What is the frequency?" both exist "within the canon of late, great short story writer Donald Barthelme." Also, both attackers are from Texas (like Rather), were at the University of Houston in 1957, and both followed Rather to live in New York City. The most puzzling question, according to the site, is why "Barthelme's writings also refer to 'CBS,' 'Sixty Minutes,' and a lecherous editor named 'Lather.'"
Is it all mere coincidence?
"Perhaps. But maybe, just maybe, it is the key to the riddle that haunts our generation," says Cherry Red.
Allman himself is not opposed to the play based off his essay, even though portions of it are recited as the attackers accost the poor man playing the anchor.
Ian Allen says this play is different from others his group has done because "it's silly and mean-spirited at the same time. We beat Dan Rather up 13 times, I think, in this show."
In promoting the play, Cherry Red Productions invites Washingtonians to "join us as we document this epic struggle between news and fiction, rational and irrational, coincidence and conspiracy, irony and idiocy, fact and faith."
Also like last time, CBS's report on the subject at hand was one-sided. Even while acknowledging the fact that there is not agreement among scientists about global warming (Questions such as is it happening? is it bad? is it natural? are still widely disputed), a report yesterday by John Roberts did not provide any airtime to supporters of the White House's behind-the-scenes action or any critics of global warming.
According to the Times, in its fervor to get the scoop everyone in broadcast media is seeking, CBS News made an unprecedented, blatant move by linking proposed news interviews to a book deal with Simon and Schuster, guest appearances on MTV, and even a made-for-television movie--all done under the auspices of CBS's parent company, Viacom.
"From the distinguished reporting of CBS News to the youthful reach of MTV, we believe this is a unique combination of projects that will do justice to Jessica's inspiring story" said a letter written by Betsy West, a senior news v.p. at the network.
A movie about Lynch's life "would be the highest priority for the CBS movie division, which specializes in inspirational stories of courage."
CBS News insists that it did nothing wrong, pointing out instead what it alleged was unfairness by a paper that has lost its credibility through its recent scandals (leaving aside that it inspired CBS to do the story mentioned in our first item).
"Unlike the New York Times's own ethical problems, there is no question about the accuracy or integrity of CBS News's reporting," the network division said in a statement which also accused the Times of leaving out exculpatory portions of the West letter. It refuses, however, to release the full details of its offers to Lynch.
Whoever is wrong, at least CBS News has finally recognized that unfairness can creep into reporting. Now if only they'd recognize it when they're not on the receiving end.
Reporting on the struggle, CBS's Joie Chen used the stroller march as her peg, but somehow managed to not label the CDF as liberal, while at the same time tagging House Republicans as conservative.
"The Congressional Budget Office is upping its projection of the federal budget deficit by 33 percent, largely because of the Bush tax cut. The CBO now estimates a record American deficit of more than $400 billion."
But one excerpt that neither Pitts nor any other CBS reporter read to viewers details the close relationship between the Clintons and former CBS anchor--and Rather's predecessor--Walter Cronkite.
In her book, New York's junior senator describes hearing "comforting" words from Cronkite. The wealthy, retired newsman offered the Clinton family a ride on his yacht immediately after the president, according to the book, first admitted to his wife that he indeed had had an affair. During a gloomy Martha's Vineyard vacation following the revelation, Cronkite called up to try and make things better.
"None of us is perfect," the former anchor said. "Let's go sailing!"
"Mr. President, if we could be one one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away winners."
At the end of the interview, the anchorman offered another oblation:
"God bless you. Thank you very much. And tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we're pulling for her. Thank you very much."
Also during the interview, Clinton gave Rather some advice on how to report on the Travelgate scandal. The president told Rather, "I challenge you to tell the American people that I think that we have a right to run an office with three people instead of seven at taxpayers' expense." The anchorman agreed, and not just for himself: "Mr. President, we will accept that challenge. And Connie joins the CBS Evening News next Tuesday night; we hope you'll be watching. She'll accept that challenge and meet what you said."
"President Bush says his basic plan for trying to stimulate the economy is a big tax cut. He says that, among other things, it will create jobs. Democrats say it's too heavily weighted toward the wealthy and that it won't do what the president says it will."
The anchor is welcome to have views in common with Democrats, but not to share those views with his audience.
In the battle, the figures of two federal representatives, Republican Tom DeLay and Democrat Martin Frost,figure prominently. Both sides have accused each man of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. Democrats charge that DeLay is butting into a state's affairs and that he or his staff acted improperly, and possibly illegally, in trying to get the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to hunt down an airplane believed to be carrying a number of Democrats who had fled to prevent a vote which the Republicans were widely believed to win.
Republicans have shot back, arguing that DeLay is merely following in the footsteps of Frost who oversaw the last reapportionment process in 1990, a process which produced a plan Republicans felt was unfair to them. Additionally, early in the dispute, Republicans accused two Frost staff members of stealing an early draft of the GOP plan.
Aside from the rightness or wrongness of the walkout later staged by Democrats, there's a lot of material on either side, yet Rather and his cohorts have dwelt exclusively on Democratic complaints of what CBS reporter Bob McNamara termed a "redistricting Texas power play" with Tom DeLay acting as "a force in this," according to Rather.
The CBS Evening News has devoted a full story and a tell piece by Rather relaying the accusations against DeLay and his staff but has never mentioned the allegations against the Frost employees, much less the congressman's very active role in current and previous redistricting attempts.
"He finds it t
