Sure would be fun to be a right wing blogger these days, with the CBS meltdown and all. As they crow over the achievement and wait for Dan Rather to topple -- a bit premature, I think -- there are some observations worth noting.
First, some questions, does anyone really think Dan Rather personally vets all, or any, of the stories he reads on air? That's what staff is for, isn't it? If the allegedly forged memos were verified by the CBS crew why would he double check them? How could he, anyway? Is he some kind of expert? So much of the criticism of the story is aimed at him, but whatever problem exists there is systemic and won't change even if he resigned.
The entire affair has been good for blogs of all political stripes, and seeing some lefty blogs try to defend the memos has been a bit perplexing. After all, Bush skipping guard duty and using family influence is pretty much a non-story. Most of us non-partisan observers, shoot, even the partisan ones, assume that Bush had it easier than the average Joe. We all got past it four years ago.
It occurs to me that the Bush ANG story isn't really important to the Left at this point, either. It's just difficult for them to admit that the great pillars of American journalism are solidly behind their guy. If the broadcast networks and major papers are actively and even unfairly favoring Kerry then shouldn't he be much more popular as a candidate? But if these memos are as fake as it seems then they are tangible evidence that CBS is working in tandem with the Kerry campaign. Indeed, it makes it more likely that they recieved them directly from a Kerry partisan, and since they consider the Kerry people partners they took the memos at face value. The Kerry folks are professionals, right? They wouldn't give us obvious forgeries, would they?
I'd like to think this whole thing will make for a more careful press corp in the future, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Walter at September 14, 2004 12:47 PMOrdinarily I'd agree that holding Rather resposible for the shoddy vetting of material he reads aloud to the studio audience is unfair, except that (a) Rather has vehemently defended the information, stating that he *knows* the story is accurate and the documents are *real* and thus (b) is setting himself up as the authority, as a "real" journalist, not just a talking head on the nightly news. On that basis, he's has to take the consequences as much as Joe Staffer out in the back office.
If he couched his defense of the story as "CBS News stands by its report," or even, "I haven't personally reviewed this material, but I know and trust the folks who gathered this story and who did the checking on it," that would be a different matter. Rather, though, would prefer to be known as a journalist, the story-maker, not just the story-reader, and thus his fortunes are tied to a story that, yes, he probably didn't check into himself.
In an odd way, it's analogous to the President. Nobody expects him (regardless of who holds the office) to be an expert in everything he encounters, just to make the best decisions with the people he's used his best judgment to surround himself with. Nonetheless, "the buck stops here" remains, with some wiggle room, the bottom line, and even if some cabinet member takes the fall for bad info presented, it still tarnishes the person who appointed that cabinet member.
Posted by: *** Dave at September 14, 2004 01:41 PMI hadn't considered that aspect of Rather's behavior. He does bring it on himself when he defends the piece.
Posted by: Walter at September 14, 2004 05:20 PMI agree. Rather has to take the blame, even though I don't believe it's something he did intentionally or maliciously. I'm sure he was duped.
However, I'm also in a situation where I oddly admire him for at least attempting to bring forth a story with research and documentation (even if it turned out to be fake), compared to what passes for news these days -- the "some people say" smear routine.
Posted by: Pete Guither at September 15, 2004 12:33 PMActually, if Rather DOESN'T personally check each and every story, then he should quit and give his job to someone who does. He's a fool to trust his staff.
Let's face it, given the power of the newscasters these days, they're an even more mouth-watering target than the CIA. Infiltrate a sleeper agent or three, and have fun.
While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm the first to admit to the corruptability of mankind, and how utterly easy it is to buy someone. (Everyone has a price... it's merely a case of can YOU afford to pay it.)
At the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie:
If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. All men bear the blood of Cain. Trust no one, not even yourself. Everyone lies. The innocent lie because they don't want to be hurt for what's not really their fault, the guilty lie because they have no other choice. There's a sucker born every minute. This way to the Egress.
And so on.
Come on, be a little cynical! The first dose is free... *grin*
Ed Becerra