Jeff Jarvis writes a very good, funtional description of journalism (Journalism is a verb, not a noun):

Journalism is not defined by the person who does it or by the medium or the company that delivers it.

Journalism is not a thing. It is an act: The act of informing is journalism. It's a verb, not a noun.

And no one owns journalism. It is not an official act, a certified act, an expert act, a proprietary act. Anyone can do journalism. Everyone does. Some do it better than others, of course. But everyone does it.

He is precisely right.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the Apple v. Does case and have already written a few posts and will be writing more in the future. I'm not a big fan of the "are bloggers journalists?" debate, particularly when it comes to the government deciding who is a journalist and who isn't a journalist. The only test for "press shield" laws as far as I'm concerned is whether information is gathered and then publicly distributed, or there is an intent to distribute (A Proper Press Shield Test: Publication or Intent to Publish, Period). However, despite my obvious and definitive solution to the problem, the debate about bloggers and journalists rages on.

Many commentators, both bloggers and those in "main stream media," have made the argument that, of course, bloggers are or can be journalists. Well and good. I agree with this position. However, this may have unanticipated consequences.

Today on NevOn (via BoingBoing) I read of the harassment of a foreign blogger by US Immigration (Don't Say Blogger to US Immigration):

This sounds like an unbelievable story, but it happened to Canadian blogger Jeremy Wright last week.

As already reported on quite a few blogs, Jeremy was detained and interrogated by US Immigration when he arrived in New York last week for a meeting with McGraw-Hill [Note: Wright claims the meeting was not with McGraw-Hill] to discuss a great business opportunity for Jeremy in the area of blogging.

It appears that the immigration people simply did not believe that Jeremy could make a living as a blogger. And they gave him the third degree - including an humiliating strip search - as a result for some hours. And banned him from entering the US. [links in original]

Wright's original posts appear unavailable, but he has posted "The End of the Story":

I’m still not 100% sure what happened at Customs at the airport. Really, totally unsure. However at the very least I was denied entry and flagged for followup any other time I try to enter. As far as I can tell, I am not “banned” from entering. I’m not sure why the border guard said I was, threatened to throw me and jail and sieze my assets, etc.....

Anyways, I’m not going to New York. The company basically needed someone there this week, and the only way to get a Visa is through a fairly standard 2 week process. Which I understand, and I’m not mad about, it just means I’m not going.

What happened here? Well, I don't have any more information, but Wright's story reminded me of a journalist's story from May 2004, as recounted in Slate (I, Visa):

Last week a British reporter was detained by immigration officials and then expelled from the United States for traveling here without knowing that the visa rules had changed. More precisely, she didn't know that a decades-old unenforced rule was suddenly being enforced against friendly tourists long accustomed to entering the country without a visa at all. Elena Lappin, a freelance journalist from the United Kingdom (who has written for Slate), was stopped at Los Angeles International Airport, subjected to a body search, handcuffed, frog-marched through the airport, and then held in a cell at a detention center overnight—all because she dared travel to the United States without a special journalist visa. There has been a rule on the books since 1952 requiring foreign journalists to obtain special "I visas," but foreign journalists say it was invariably ignored by Immigration and Naturalization Service officials who required only that citizens of friendly countries apply for a visa waiver, an exemption allowing most residents of 27 enumerated countries to visit the United States for business or pleasure for up to 90 days without jumping through any INS hoops.

No more. When the INS was folded into the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003, the I-visa rule began to be enforced in earnest, sometimes, resulting in at least 15 journalists from friendly countries being forcibly detained, interrogated, fingerprinted, and held in cells overnight—with most denied access to phones, pens, lawyers, or their consular officials. Their friendly welcome at the detention center included lights that shone all night long and video surveillance of the entire cell, often including toilets. [links in original]

Read the whole thing for more on this travesty of freedom of speech.

Could this be what happened to Wright? Even if it isn't, wouldn't this be a nice tool to deny entry to foreign visitors who happen to be bloggers? "You're a blogger? That means you're a journalist, which means you need an 'I' Visa. Don't have one? Too bad."

When everyone is a journalist will everyone need an "I" Visa? Will U.S. bloggers face reciprocity? Perhaps we should change this "I" Visa nonsense instead.

Slate has published another good article by tech journalist Paul Boutin, who advocates HTML annotation software for bloggers (Newsmashing: The new technique that will change blogging forever). Basically, you would be able to copy a webpage, then annotate directly on top of it, highlighting passages, writing notes, adding links, etc. Such is possible today, of course, but a software package that made it easy (just as blogging tools made publishing easy), could be a significant change, allowing anyone who can blog to create such annotations.

Being a long time fan of annotation, I think this would be great.

Of course, there is the little issue of copyright violation. Certainly, if I hosted the complete original work with annotations, that could very clearly lead to a copyright claim. Under the INDUCE Act theories, the company that made the software to allow this would also be liable. After all, if you are authorized to annotate, then you can manipulate the underlying file without need for annotation software. Clearly, the intent and purpose of annotation software would be to encourage the creation of derivative works and reproductions that people are unauthorized to make.

One possible solution would be to be able to create the annotations as a separate file and then layer them over the original copyrighted work. If one wanted to see the annotation, they would click a special browser link that would go to the original HTML of the work that is annotated (no copyright violation there) and then display the annotation over it (potential copyright violation). There is a drawback in that the underlying work could easily be changed to throw off the annotation, but that is a problem with linking in general.

Of course, all the people who were upset with Google for changing the presentation of their work would be just as upset with all the annotators. Would this be a copyright violation? Would a software company that provided this service be guilty of inducing infringement?

Currently, it is unclear how such a case would come out. I would like to think that annotation of this sort is clearly not a copyright violation inherently, but my views are not necessary shared by copyright owners and the courts.

UPDATE 1410 PT

Apparently Paul Boutin wanted to have an actual newsmashing contest, but lawyers shut him down! (Newsmashing!):

We were going to have a newsmashing contest, but the lawyers shot it down. Damn you, copyright law!

Heh.

There is has been a great deal of discussion regarding the Apple v. Does trade secrets case and whether or not bloggers or online journalists should be protected by press shield laws. IPTA Blog has helpfully put together a group of links with various commmentary (Blogging, journalism and the law: linkdump). Much of this debate has revolved around whether bloggers are journalists or to whom press shield laws should apply, should it be to people who work for established main stream media, should we measure whether the process of journalism was followed, yadda, yadda, yadda. I find that much of this debate misses the point.

Why do we want a press shield in the first place? The reason derives from the First Amendment. We want to encourage people to gather information and publicly disseminate it without unduly impacting legitimate law enforcement interests. So, how do we limit the press shield appropriately? Linda Berger suggests four possible means to do so in her article on press shield laws (Shielding the Unmedia: Using the Process of Journalism to Protect the Journalist's Privilege in an Infinite Universe of Publication [PDF]). The four possible means are: favoring one kind of speaker, one kind of content, one medium of communication, or one type of process. Seems pretty reasonble to me.

Berger takes quite a bit of time persuasively arguing about the faults of the first three types of distinctions. If you favor one kind of speaker, you end up essentially creating some sort of licensing system for those who are "journalists" and everyone else who publishes to the world. If you favor one kind of content, you inevitably get into the business of deciding what is "news" and what is something other than "news," leading into a thicket of content-based decision-making that is anathema to free speech. If you favor one medium of communication, that just seems weird. Publish in a newspaper, okay, broadcast on television, not okay. I agree that all these means of limiting press shield laws are seriously flawed.

That leaves us with the type of process. Berger constructs quite the litmus test for journalistic processes:

• Does the Process Show a Commitment to Regular and Public Dissemination of “Journalistic Truth” as Evidenced by a Track Record of Gathering and Publicly Disseminating Usually Truthful Information?
• Does the Process Show a Commitment to Regular and Public Dissemination of “Journalistic Truth” as Evidenced by the Presence of Internal Mechanisms Designed to Verify and Evaluate Information Before It Is Disseminated?
• Does the Process Show a Commitment to Regular and Public Dissemination of “Journalistic Truth” as Evidenced by Publication of Information from Which Readers Can Judge the Degree of Independence from Both Inside and Outside Forces?

Sheesh. Do you really want judges and juries deciding such things? Do you really want The Nation having to explain its version of "journalistic truth" and "degree of independence" during a McCarthy era?

Why does all this truth, verification, evaluation yadda, yadda, yadda, even matter?

The "press" and journalism boils down to two things: gather information and publish it publicly. Isn't the only process we need to know about is that information was gathered and then it was publicly published (or there was intent to publicly publish)? Does it really matter if you've never published before in your life, if this is the time you get the scoop. for whatever reason? If you happen to be in the right place at the right time, if you happen to have the specific expertise that will let you see something others miss, why in the world do we care that you've never published something before? Do we want to discourage people who might be a valuable addition to the marketplace of ideas simply because they aren't regular visitors to the marketplace? If people come across information valuable to the public sphere, don't we want them to bring it forward?

Do we really need mechanisms to evaluate truth before publication, if you happen to be the subject matter expert? This isn't libel, where the truth or falsity of a charge is specifically at issue. Even if you aren't a subject matter expert, why shouldn't it be okay to publish something with a caveat saying, "This may or may not be true, but I thought people should know." What harm has occured because of this that wouldn't occur with a fact-checking department (remember this ain't libel)?

Do we really need full disclosure of possible conflicts of interest? If someone publishes anonymously (more-or-less) people will likely take such publicatiobns with a greater grain of salt. Still, that doesn't mean that they aren't worthy of protection as gatherers and disseminators of information.

In the end, it seems to me, the only process worth protecting is gathering information and public distribution or the intent to publicly distribute said information. That is what the First Amendment wants to protect. Sure, we would prefer that information be verified and people have track records, but the First Amendment doesn't and shouldn't care. It is a relatively simple and brightline test. It would certainly protect mainstream journalists, as well as bloggers.

Would it be too broad? I doubt it. You can learn a lot simply by knowing who published the information in the first place. If that doesn't tell you much, chances are the person has probably been acting as a journalist for quite some time. Sources will also be less likely to provide information to people who might not adhere to journalistic ethics. If they adhere to journalistic ethics of protecting sources, even at some cost to themselves, they're probably journalists acting journalistically.

You've gathered information and you published it publicly. Congratulations. You've acted the way the First Amendment hopes you will. Press Shield laws should recognize this.

Over on Balkinization, Jack Balkin links to a new study about political polarization in the blogospher (Evidence of Cyberbalkanization?). The 16-page study by Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance can be found here: The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog [PDF]. The report's conclusion?:

In our study we witnessed a divided blogosphere: liberals and conservatives linking primarily within their separate communities, with far fewer cross-links exchanged between them. This division extended into their discussions, with liberal and conservative blogs focusing on different news articles, topics, and political figures. An interesting pattern that emerged was that conservative bloggers were more likely to link to other blogs: primarily other conservative blogs, but also some liberal ones. But while the conservative blogosphere was more densely linked, we did not detect a greater uniformity in the news and topics discussed by conservatives.

Balkin wonders:

Is this inconsistent with my previous arguments about the blogosphere? Yes, but only in part. There are two questions: one is whether we will find ideological polarization in the blogosphere. This study says that we will. The second is whether the blogosphere (and the Internet generally) causes or facilitates this polarization, and whether the polarization that it causes or facilitates is substantially greater or more worrisome than polarization that occurs through other mass media. On this second question, the evidence remains mixed. It is still quite possible that linking and the culture of linking creates marginally more exposure to divergent ideas than people otherwise experience in real space, and thus, that it is not a contributing cause of existing political polarization. That is to say, the Internet creates two opposite effects. One is ease of searching for and finding information that confirms what you already believe. That would facilitate and enhance polarization. The other is serendipitious exposure to information that you disagree with or that you weren't looking for. That would work in the opposite direction. The question is which effect dominates the other. [link in original]

Jack is right about the second question, but I'm not really all that sure about the first question after having read this study. Are we going to find political polarization in the blogosphere? If the populace as a whole is polarized, of course we will. I would also suspect that we would find a higher degree of polarization than the general population as those who are more passionate would likely have more incentive to blog about their positions and passion tends to be found in the polarized extremes. So, of course there is polarization in the blogosphere. Human beings naturally tend to associate themselves with others with whom they agree.

The question, I think, is what is the baseline for this polarization? Sure, conservative and liberal bloggers tend to link to each other more than their ideological opposites. But how often did you find The Nation referencing the National Review before the internet? Is the polarization of the blogosphere any greater than the polarization of the political news periodicals of a couple of decades ago? What can we conclude about the blogosphere as a medium as compared to other mediums? Does it foster polarization or not? And what about the long tail?

This data is intriguing, but it isn't particularly clear what it is saying or if it says much at all.

Jay Rosen has sparked a mighty informative dialog about blogosphere coverage of the Department of Education/Armstrong Williams/Ketchum public relations agency "pay to play" propaganda/corruption scandal (Bloggers Are Missing in Action as Ketchum Tests the Conscience of PR). See also, this follow-up on PressThink by Lisa Stone (Ketchum and Bloggers: Who Said What? What Remains? Lisa Stone Reports) For those who missed it, the Department of Education signed a $1 million contract with the Ketchum public relations firm to tout the "No Child Left Behind Act." Among other things, the contract included $240,000 to syndicated columnist and television host Armstrong Williams to support the Act, which he did and did not publicly disclose.

Armstrong Williams has been rightly excoriated by many, and as someone else has said, Williams' losing his column and hosting duties would be a good start at repentence for his sins. I don't think the DoE has even begun to take full responsibility for this corruption.

However, what Rosen argues is that PR Bloggers haven't made as big a stink about the Ketchum PR firm's role in this scandal. Aren't they at least as culpable as Williams and the DoE? Rosen isn't saying that it wasn't mentioned, but that there didn't seem to be any sustained outrage. Here is Rosen quoting Canuck Flack:

"Why was the PR blogging community so subdued in its reaction? Why didn't a feeding frenzy of debate and recrimination erupt, as in other parts of the blogosphere, building and tearing down arguments by the minute?"

On this point, I think there is a very informative debate taking place.

However, one thing that PR bloggers and others should note is that, whether or not there was sufficient outrage among PR bloggers, there was virtually no outrage among bloggers in general. The focus of outrage has been on Williams and the DoE/Bush Administration. Part of that is certainly due to politics. Part of that, I think, is that most people don't expect much in the way of ethics from PR firms.

If many already believe that journalists lack credibility, where do PR flacks stand? For the most part, I would expect many to believe that PR only adheres to two rules: 1) It isn't illegal; and, 2) It isn't a deliberate falsehood.

Rosen is right that PR bloggers should be concerned that they might not have paid sufficient attention to significant ethical lapses by their peers. All members of the PR profession should be concerned, however, that no one else seems to have paid much attention either. If gross violation of your profession's ethics is widely ignored, that is not a good sign of the health of your profession.

The report of the Individual Review Panel on the September 8, 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, "For the Record," (234-page PDF, "CBS Report"), is a devastating indictment of CBS News' handling of their report on the forged Killian Memos. I followed the CBS News' response to criticism of the report and their unethical and incompetent response closely (Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part One). Earlier, I wrote about why Andrew Heyward should resign given the Report's findings (Why Does CBS News President Andrew Heyward Still Have His Job?) and another critique (Omissions and Other Critiques of the CBS News Report).

Many have noted one of the conclusions of the Panel: that there was no political agenda by individuals at CBS News against the President (p28 of the Report):

However, the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing or the airing or the Segment or its content.

However, to say that there was not an "agenda" is not to say there was no bias. And it is in this mistaken presumption that the Panel and their Report have done CBS no favors. Note this statement from Linda Mason, CBS News' senior vice president for standards and special projects, the person CBS has created a new position for due to the Panel's recommendations (Network's brass, critics take solace in the report):

"That for us was the big headline: That there was no political agenda, because that would have been terrible," said Linda Mason, CBS News' senior vice president for standards and special projects, whose position was created Monday in response to the report. "We were all greatly relieved to see that the panel did extensive work and gave us a clean bill of health in terms of it not being politically motivated."

Well, I wouldn't exactly call the Panel's report a "clean bill of health." A "clean bill of health" would seem to indicate that nothing at CBS needs to change. Probably not the best point of view for the person who is supposed to make sure similar errors don't happen in the future. Even the Panel found (p28):

The Panel reviewed this issue and found certain actions that could support such charges [of political motivation].

Fired reporter Mapes reads even more into the Report's findings:

Mapes, whom the report saddled with much of the blame for what went wrong, said in a statement, "I am heartened to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as I have none. For 25 years, I have built a reputation as a fair, honest and thorough journalist."

Nevermind that one can earn a reputation as a fair, honest and thorough journalist while acknowledging bias (indeed, such transparency might help one earn such a reputation). But that is not what the Panel found. The Panel determined that there was no political agenda, not that there was no bias, and that is why the Panel did CBS no favors.

Read on...

[UPDATE] Jeff Jarvis is an earlier entry:

The panel and the network refused to deal with the key issue of bias. They could have denied it. They could have taken the bull by the horns and grappled with the fact that, of course, Rather and Mapes have bias personal perspectives about Bush and this story and more. But they did the worst thing: neither. That's no way to build credibility and trust with your public.

Continue reading "CBS Report Panel Endorses "View From Nowhere""

The report of the Individual Review Panel on the September 8, 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, "For the Record," (234-page PDF, "CBS Report"), is a devastating indictment of CBS News' handling of their report on the forged Killian Memos. I followed the CBS News' response to criticism of the report and their unethical and incompetent response closely (Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part One). Earlier, I wrote about why Andrew Heyward should resign given the Report's findings (Why Does CBS News President Andrew Heyward Still Have His Job?).

So how did the report do, at least on the "aftermath" issues?

Decent, given their access to sources. However, although the report rightly takes CBS News to task for its abysmal response to criticism of its reporting on the Killian Memo forgeries, there are some curious omissions and some of the conclusions are a bit off as well.

Read on ...

Continue reading "Omissions and Other Critiques of the CBS News Report"

I've always held that the Killian Memo forgery debacle was about journalistic standards and reporting and not about Dan Rather. That is why I don't refer to it as "Rathergate."

However, I do believe that Dan Rather, as managing editor of CBS News and the main correspondent who vigorously defended the discredited segment on 60 Minutes Wednesday, must shoulder a substantial part of the blame. And it is not just me. Apparently, Dan Rather agrees.

Last September 11th, the LA Times published an interview with Dan Rather concerning the forged Killian memos (Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story):

Rather said in an interview that CBS worked exhaustively on the story, beginning before the 2000 presidential election.

"We worked hard, we worked long, we dug hard and did our best to be accurate, to authenticate what we could," Rather said. "This story is true, the questions we raised about then-Lt. Bush's National Guard service are serious and legitimate questions."

He topped this with:

Although many others helped report and corroborate the story, Rather said, "I'm of the school, my name is on it, I'm responsible." [emphasis added]

I wonder how Dan Rather defines "responsible"?

The report of the Individual Review Panel on the September 8, 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, "For the Record," (234-page PDF, "CBS Report"), is a devastating indictment of CBS News' handling of their report on the forged Killian Memos. I followed the CBS News' response to criticism of the report and their unethical and incompetent response closely (Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part One). I'll have more to say about the report later, but right now I wonder why CBS News President Andrew Heyward still has a job.

The report clearly shows that the head of the embattled news organization did not perform as one would expect the head of a news organization to perform. Though Heyward clearly realized that there were problems with the reporting on the segment and issued a directive to clear up the matter, he does not appear to have provided sufficient overview or leadership to ensure that his directive was followed promptly and systematically. Instead of focusing on good reporting, as the head of a news organization should, he seems to have been primarily interested in damage control and not following up on his own directive. Accountability seems to have been sorely lacking at CBS News, which is why I find Les Moonves statement on Andrew Heyward very puzzling (Leslie Moonves Issues Statement in Response to Panel Report [8-page PDF]):

This brings us to CBS NEWS President Andrew Heyward. The Panel’s report shows that before the segment was broadcast, Heyward explicitly warned West and Howard that “we will have to defend ‘every syllable’ of the segment and, as we mentioned earlier, specifically urged them not to allow the production team to ‘stampede us.’” In the aftermath of the report, he issued direct instructions to investigate the sourcing of the story and the authentication of the documents and pressed for his staff to come up with new and substantive information rather than merely standing by the story in a “stubborn repetition of what we’ve already said.” However, the Panel concluded that Heyward’s directives were not implemented in a prompt or systematic way.

This raises questions about accountability at CBS News – questions that will have to be addressed both by Andrew Heyward and me. We intend to do so. But Heyward is an executive of integrity and talent, and the right person to be leading CBS NEWS during this challenging time.

Where is the accountability for Heyward? Doesn't he have any obligation to ensure that his directives are being followed, especially when it is obvious that they are not? There were many opportunities for Heyward to take charge when it was clear his underlings weren't doing their jobs, but he did not.

Read on for the damning evidence...

UPDATE 1840 PT
Jay Rosen is also shocked Heyward has kept his job (After Trust Me Journalism Comes Openness: Rather Report Released):

My other major reaction is that I, too, am shocked the CBS News President Andrew Heyward has his job, and this is the reason.

As soon as the reporting of the Air National Guard story came under question, CBS News had not one but two problems. The problems with the story were one. The involvement--no, the immersion--of Dan Rather in the event was the other. Rather is the star of CBS News, the face of the brand, the personification of the new division. The anchor. Immediately it was clear that he "bigfooted" the rest of the division and took over defense of a case in which he was accused. Only one person could have seen the dangers for Rather, for CBS News and for the network itself in allowing Rather to become so involved in defense of the story, which muted everyone else "under" Rather, leaving only Andrew Heyward, who did not act. He was the one who could have protected the brand and his friend, Dan Rather, by speaking truth to power. The responsibility was his alone and he failed.

Glenn Reynolds calls Heyward's continued employment at CBS a "double standard" (Rathergate breaks).

Roger Simon wonders if Heyward's protection will hold up (Where They "Stopped the Buck" at CBS).

Continue reading "Why Does CBS News President Andrew Heyward Still Have His Job?"

Jay Rosen has summed up his thoughts on Bloggercon III over on Press Think (BloggerCon III: Notes and Observations on the People of Moore's Law). He makes a very good point (among many):

In my view BloggerCon is not a tech conference--it's about democracy, and the blogger's "producerist" vision of it--but I am perfectly happy when others define the event differently.

Blogging, re: self-expression, is about democracy. When we realize that we can be creators as well as "consumers" we are more free and responsible for that freedom. Read the whole thing.

In any case, I was lucky to have the opportunity to meet Jay Rosen face-to-face and talk about some of the issues we've discussed via blog postings and comments, as well as Jay Rosen's view of Bloggercon. Part of these discussions took place over dinner with Zack Rosen (the very interesting and bright nephew of Jay), Mary Hodder, Peter Hirshberg and Doc Searls, who wrote about the dinner here: Dinnercon.

While I agree that a RosenCon would be very cool, I do think that Jay Rosen should take on the mantle of putting together a producerist Bloggercon IV. And why not in the news media capital known as New York City?

Another report from Bloggercon. I'm in the "journalism" panel moderated by Scott Rosenberg. Once again, the discussion devolves into a debate about whether or what sort of journalists bloggers are. This discussion frustrates and saddens me. I would think that, by now, we would have realized the journalism is a particular set of practices. Publishing is another set of practices. The two are obviously related, but they are orthogonal.

Journalism should be judges on its practice, not on where it was published. We've too often thought the press and the means of publication are tied together. They're not.

Would we talk about people who run printing presses as to whether or not they are journalists? Of course not. That doesn't make any sense. Same thing with blogs. Someone with a printing press is a newspaper because they practice journalism, not because they own a press.

So, let's talk about the practice of journalism and not worry about the publishing medium (remembering that each media has particular conventions).

On a related note, Jay Rosen, points out that blogs denaturalizes journalism and forces us to reassess our assumptions about what journalism is and how it is done. Absolutely! Let's have that discussion.

Jay Rosen continues his excellent ongoing series of postings analyzing the challenges and opportunities for news media in light of recent events over on Press Think (Are We Headed for an Opposition Press?). However, I disagree with some of the dichotomies with which Rosen sketches the possible future:

Whatever happens with the news networks, which is only part of the picture, what's more plausible to you: the "cultural divides that have increasingly defined American politics" will increasingly come to define mainstream American media, or... Big Media will successfully hold itself back from politics, and the major news sources will remain in the "nonaligned" movement?

In politics we have opposition parties. Those in each party express one position when it is their party in charge, and castigate the same position when it is championed by the other party in charge. How expected. And how sad. Is this the future we want the press to adopt?

Why not a press that is the permanent party of skepticism and contingent thinking? How about a press, not without bias, certainly, but with a commitment to exposing the facts and a humble recognition of the possibility for error? Why not a press firmly on the side of transparency? Such a position is hardly apolitical. In fact, it is radically engaged with and opposed to "politics" as well as the "view from nowhere."

This expansion of the political into "news" and commentary coincides with greater transparency for the big news combines, which are more successfully scrutinized than they have ever been. Various layers of protection once kept journalists from the knowledge the public had of their mistakes. That layer seems gone now.

Layers of protection? Only if you consider the Maginot Line a success. Lack of transparency was a false protection. Embracing transparency is the only defense.

In Bushworld, all is different. There is no fourth estate; an invalid theory, says Bush. The press is not a watchdog for the public, but another interest group that wants something. (Or it's an arm of our opponents's operation.) But the press is weak, and almost passe, in the Administrations view. There is no need to deal with it most of the time. It can be denied access with impunity. It can be attacked for bias relentlessly, which charges up Bush supporters. It can be fed gruel in plush surroundings and will come back the next day. The Bush crowd has completely changed the game on journalists, knowing that journalists are unlikely to respond with action nearly as bold.

Well, yeah. Big Media is an interest group and frequently acts like one. One can hardly blame Bush for taking advantage of the obviousness weaknesses of the press. It was bound to happen.

Washington journalism likes to imagine itself the Administration's great adversary, but most of the time it relies on access journalism-- not the adversarial kind. "Sources make news" is the first tenet in that system, and that gives sources power. But access journalism makes less and less sense when there is no access, and sources rarely deviate from the party line. The White House press corps has always been based on access, so much so that the alternatives to it have almost been forgotten. I think there will be pressure to abandon the whole dream of press access under Bush, and re-position some forces accordingly.

Exactly. And I hope there is such pressure, though I don't hold out much hope. Non-access-based journalism is a lot more work, and you don't get invited to nearly as many cocktail parties.

I expect some news organizations to begin dealing with these pressures by essentially giving in on several counts-- for example, that newsrooms are populated by liberals and conservative voices are too few. Or some sort of concession like that. Coming to terms with "liberal bias" could be seen as a way of recognizing the reality of the election and responding to continued anger at the press. The most likely place for those efforts to begin is with the supposed finding that "moral values" (read religion) were the top concern of voters, and yet this is not a strength of the liberal, secular press, therefore we need to change-- something like that. After the Republican sweep, I expect some major initiatives on the bias front.

Sigh. Of course, if this is the "solution" then the media has asked the wrong question. It isn't about the "bias." It is about the transparency. It is about the conversation with readers. It is about the links to other sources.

Keep your eye on Sinclair Broadcasting, in my view a new kind of media company-- a political empire with television stations. It was built to prosper in the conditions I have described. It already has a self-conscious political identity. It is already steeped in culture war. And it admires and imitates the Bush method of changing the world, but keeping the same language for the new situation.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Sinclair is the result of our current broadcast regulatory scheme that turns broadcasters into gatekeepers. Change the regulation to reduce gatekeeping and you solve the Sinclair problem. Unfortunately, too many entrenched interests, including politicians and, more importantly, other broadcasters, like gatekeepers. Yeah, I'd like to see the solutions that Big Media proposes to the gatekeeper problem. That'll happen. Sure.

The press must change, and it won't be easy. Opening up formerly closed processes hardly ever is. Mistakes will be made, complaints will be ubiquitous. The challenges are clear, the opportunities many. Personally, I'm mildly optimistic.

I was a guest on the Tammy Bruce radio show today for a few minutes discussing blogging and memogate.

I've had a few things to say about the CBS Memo debacle and I've been commenting frequently media issues over on Jay Rosen's Press Think, so I thought I would throw in my 2-cents on the recent embarrasments for Fox News.

Josh Micah Marshall has taken the lead in covering the foulup over at Fox News.

As noted here (Is Fox News literally making stuff up out of whole cloth about John Kerry?), Fox News posted an article with obviously fabricated quotes from Sen. Kerry. I say "obviously fabricated" because you'd have to be pretty dense to believe such quotations were accurate:

Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.

With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.

Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.

"I'm metrosexual — he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.

A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.

Fox News has since corrected the post with the following statement (Trail Tales: What's That Face?):

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter’s partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.

The reporter who wrote the false quotes was Carl Cameron, Fox News' chief political correspondent.

Fox News has also issued the following memo to its employees (There was a mini-brouhaha):

PLEASE READ: Last week, we experienced separate lapses of judgment, resulting in the posting, on our website, of inaccurate material.

Credibility is our lifeblood. When we make factual mistakes, we affect adversely all the hard work that we've done for eight years to become the country's leading news channel.

There is enough blame to go around. In last week's incident, a stupid parody of a quote was included in the script queue. It was picked up unthinkingly and included on the website.

For that reason, we are implementing a number of changes: first, and immediately, the scripts queue is OFF LIMITS for editorial use until the item has been broadcast or the script is approved for use. Second, the use of scripts queue for humor, sarcasm, parody or other unprofessional conduct is strictly forbidden.

Failure to follow this directive is a dismissable offense.

Marshall believes this memo "leaves the key issue entirely unstated." He is probably referring to the numerous questions he believes should be followed up on (A Few Questions). In particular, I suspect he is referring to whether or not Cameron should continue to cover the Kerry campaign.

Frankly, I agree with Marshall, I think that we should know more about why Cameron did what he did and what Fox News' reprimand consists of. Indeed, without a satisfactory explanation (and apology) from Cameron himself, he should probably be suspended from covering the Kerry Campaign, at least until the election. This was a serious lapse of judgement on Cameron's part and a failure in the publication system at Fox News. Based on what is currently known, I'd suspend Cameron for totally unprofessional behavior. Of course, I'm not sure that Marshall and I would fully agree on the reasons for proposing that Cameron be suspended until more is known.

For one, I think we need to cut some slack to reporters for joking about the subjects they cover. If all the reporters who said derogatory things about the candidates and politicians they reported on were taken off the beat, I'm not sure how much political journalism would be left. Indeed, being able to joke at a politician's expense can be a healthy sign of the distance a journalist needs from the subject. I'd worry about a reporter who couldn't laugh at the expense of the subject they covered.

What Marshall seems to be implying is the most heinous offense is that Cameron is biased. However, a joke, even such a puerile one, is not necessarily an indication of bias. It might be that Cameron makes equally crude jokes about both parties. In any case, even if Cameron was biased, what should our response be?

Well, I don't think the response should be the same as those who decry the "liberal media" and have called for Rather's firing because he is biased. All reporters are biased, objectivity is a myth and we should just get over it. What we need is more transparency and skepticism about claims. We need journalists who are rewarded for humble reporting that adheres to the facts and logic, rather than misleading rhetoric. We also need to make sure that, to the extent possible, there aren't gatekeepers for news.

Marshall errs in buying into the whole "bias" debate at all. Arguing about bias isn't going to get us anywhere. The real questions have to do with transparencey and accountability in news organizations given inevitable bias.

As for Fox News being taken by a group called "Communists for Kerry," geez. Seems like a reporter and editor need a trip to the clue factory (More Good Stuff).

Jay Rosen is analyzing the continuing aftermath of the CBS memo debacle (Political Jihad and the American Blog: Chris Satullo Raises the Stakes). He points to an op-ed by Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page editor Chris Satullo that has much to say (in 668 words) on the subject (Cries of 'media bias' hide sloppy thinking).

Satullo, like Rosen, takes a very balanced view of bloggers and big media, seeing them as symbiotic, benefiting each other. He properly denigrates excessive blog triumphalism as well as big media snobbery. He also says that we must fear "Orwellians" whose "goal isn't better journalism. It's to bully reporters into submission, so that propaganda may flourish."

Well, yes, there are plenty of folk who would prefer to be in charge of the propaganda machine rather than have to survive in a marketplace of ideas. But I don't think "Orwellian" is the right term.

Why? We live in a nation with perhaps the strongest protections for freedom of speech and the press history has ever known. The First Amendment remains a strong bulwark against the prisons and worse that journalists must face in many areas of the world.

So, I ask, what tools are these "Orwellians" using to "bully reporters into submission"? Why are these reporters cowed by the bullying? Why should they fear Brent Bozell? Why is Satullo claiming that "What matters is that journalism survive..."?

Geez.

Yes, journalism is in crisis. But the enemy is not external "Orwellians" - whoever they are. The "enemy" is within journalism. The "enemy" is whenever an organization ostensibly dedicated to news decides to act like a politician and stonewall. The "enemy" is when a news organization shades its coverage to serve corporate interests. The "enemy" is those who practice poor journalism.

And how do you fight these "Orwellians"? Not with a circle-the-wagons cry of "political jihad" against critics (which only does the "Orwellians'" job for them) but with a renewed commitment to better journalism. If, as Satullo claims (and I agree), journalism is "the craft of speaking truth to power with factual care" then journalists have to hold themselves to that standard.

Satullo says that the battle cries of the Orwellians are "Bias! Arrogance! Monopoly!" Why do the Orwellians use these cries? Why do they resonate with the public? Is it perhaps because there is truth in them? A truth that should be spoken to power?

If journalists weren't so busy claiming that they were objective and, instead, insisted on transparency and accountability, there would be little to be feared from cries of "bias." The forged CBS memos are about CBS News' failure as an institution, and one of those failures was clearly arrogance by the organization and hubris on the part of Dan Rather. And the major news organizations are, and have been, gatekeepers, if not monopolies. As corporations, they want to remain gatekeepers, because it tends to be profitable.

Satullo actually points towards this:

By journalism, I don't mean getting paid $4 million a year to have nice hair and interview Kelsey Grammer. I mean the principled, difficult search for the most thorough, accurate, fair-minded account of current matters that flawed human beings can attain.

Journalism, done right, buoys democracy; hence its place in the First Amendment.

Media conglomerates are not a synonym for journalism. They employ some journalists, and many who only pretend to be. They enable the craft, but also inhibit and cheapen it.

Journalism has enemies, but where there is freedom of expression, then the only enemies journalism has to worry about are those who would destroy it from within by "inhibit[ing] and cheapen[ing] it."

Worrying about "Orwellians" is only a distraction from the real enemies of journalism (bad journalism) and the only tool needed to defend journalism in a nation with freedom of expression (good journalism).

PS I don't think journalism has an explicit place in the First Amendment. Freedom of the press is about government regulation of distribution, not journalism.

UPDATE 2215 PT

The conversation continues on the comment section of Rosen's post: Political Jihad and the American Blog: Chris Satullo Raises the Stakes.

Contrary to my post yesterday, the investigation will look into the post-broadcast stonewalling (CBS Investigation Only on Process to Broadcast - Not Stonewalling). According to the Wall Street Journal, which is subscriber only (Viacom Unit Commissions Republican, Ex-AP CEO For Probe of '60 Minutes'):

Mr. Boccardi, who retired from the AP in 2003, said the panel would study not only the process by which the Sept. 8 report anchored by Dan Rather was prepared and broadcast, but also the network's reaction to questions challenging the piece after it aired. CBS and Mr. Rather initially stood firmly behind the story and the documents and that has generated almost as much criticism as the report itself did.

"That is very much part of what we're going to look at," Mr. Boccardi said

A CBS spokeswoman said the primary focus of the panel is the reporting of the story itself, not the aftermath. While there is no timeline for the panel to conclude its investigation, she said the hope is "it moves along at a good pace." [emphasis added]

I'm glad that Mr. Boccardi recognizes the importance of the aftermath issues. Still, one might think that CBS News should have mentioned that in their statement yesterday and the spokeswoman not been quite so dismissive of the aftermath investigation.

CBS News has announced a panel led by two distinguished Americans to look into the memogate scandal (CBS News Statement On Panel). Unfortunately, it seems that CBS News only wants to know how the forgeries got on the air and not look at the actions of CBS News after the memos were broadcast.

The Honorable Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Louis D. Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer of the Associated Press, will comprise the independent review panel that will examine the process by which a recent "60 Minutes Wednesday" report was prepared and broadcast. ....

Two days ago, CBS News and CBS announced the commissioning of an independent review to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken. [emphasis added]

As I've said time and again, some of the most shameful violations of journalistic ethics by CBS News took place after the broadcast, when CBS began receiving many credible and legitimate criticisms. If this panel is not going to look into the terrible errors that took place after the broadcast, it is clear that CBS News is not truly interested in resolving this matter and holding itself to the highest standards of journalism.

See my timeline and analysis of CBS News' response to criticism of the Killian memo forgeries:
Part I: September 8-13
Part II: September 14-21

UPDATE 1300 PT

See also, Jeff Jarvis Two Little.

UPDATE 23 Sep 2004

The stonewalling will be looked into: CBS Investigation Will Look Into Stonewalling.

This is part two of my timeline and analysis of CBS News' response to criticism of the Killian memo forgeries. Read part one here: Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part One.

Read on...

Continue reading "Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part Two"

This is a full and comprehensive update to my original post providing a timeline and analysis of CBS News' response to criticism of the Killian memo forgeries (Incompetent or Unethical? The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism Over the Killian Memos). Unfortunately, due to its length, this update has to be broken into two parts. This is part one and covers September 8-13. Part two, which covers Sept 14-21, is here: Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part Two.

First, another note about why I'm writing this series of posts on the CBS memos scandal.

I didn't jump into the "memogate" fray immediately. My first post on this story came Monday evening after CBS News defended the authenticity of the memos with two "experts," one of whom clearly had no idea what he was talking about and another whose credentials were weak at best. See my first post here: CBS Memo Defense: Richard Katz Is Wrong About Ones and Els.

I never thought there would be any significant discussion of the story after the first weekend. Watching the story develop during the first couple of days, I fully expected that CBS News would do the rational and ethical thing and declare that they were going to investigate themselves and the memos in order to clear up credible questions about the authenticity of the documents. I believed that CBS News would engage in a transparent process to prove their credibility, such as releasing the "first-generation" copies they claimed to have as well as the names of the experts who had authenticated the documents prior to broadcast.

Of course, some of the conservative "wingnuts" wouldn't have been satisfied by such a course of action (and leftist "moonbats" would see it as caving into conservative pressure), but reasonable people would have accepted that CBS News might have made an error yet was working diligently to correct it. Had this happened, while there might still have been plenty of discussion of the issue among conservative circles, most everybody else would have gone into waiting mode, giving CBS News a reasonable amount of time to conduct the investigation and report on itself.

Instead, CBS News entered standard political/corporate damage control mode and began to stonewall.

It wasn't that CBS News may have erred that is important. Mistakes happen. You correct them, figure out why they happened, and try not to repeat them, knowing that you'll make another mistake down the road. This is not news, and while it would have gotten a little bit of play, especially on the right, it wouldn't have been that big a deal. Of course, as we are now learning, the mistakes may have gone beyond errors in "news judgement" and into the realm of misdeeds.

Nevertheless (and perhaps because of possible misdeeds), CBS News refused to acknowledge even the possibility of error.

Making mistakes is one thing. Absurdly defending those mistakes, stonewalling and casting aspersions on those who make credible and legitimate criticism is another. When a major news organization engages in flagrant violations of basic journalistic ethics with regard to a claim that might have significant impact on a presidential election, that is an important story.

It would be absurd to expect or demand aggressive investigative reporters to always get it right the first time. Yes, we should demand high standards, but perfection is not achievable. However, we should demand vigorous correction policies. Imagine if the documents had been better forgeries. What would it have taken to get CBS News to admit error? In this case, the cover up really is much worse than the crime.

Many claim that there are other important institutional media questions, such as potential bias, news judgement and emphasis: more coverage should be devoted to other issues, news organizations need to dig deeper into these stories, be more aggressive in investigating and uncovering government untruths, and etc. Absolutely. These are important questions and they need to be addressed, but the answers aren't simple or even readily apparent in many cases. However, if you don't take clear violations of the fundamentals seriously, you'll never get satisfactory answers to any of the more difficult questions.

Second, I'll reiterate my stand that this isn't about Dan Rather, but about CBS News. Dan Rather is important, it is clear, but he is only one link in the web of responsibility with regard to CBS News' response to valid criticism.

Third, my basic conclusion is that the upper management of CBS News has deliberately acted unethically in responding to legitimate criticism. If the management of CBS News was not deliberately unethical, their sheer incompetence rises to the level of culpability. This is not to say that the rank and file of CBS News are implicated in the guilt of the CBS News executives, just as the rank and file of Enron are only guilty of having the poor luck in inadvertantly choosing to work for a group of crooks.

For some ideas on what will or should happen next, see Press Think (Did the President of CBS News Have Anyone in Charge of Reading the Internet and Sending Alerts?) and Buzzmachine (A Charge to the CBS Comission).

That said, please consider the evidence. If there are any errors or omissions, please let me know.

Continue reading "Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part One"

I've already noted that CBS News seems poised to throw producer Mary Mapes to the wolves (The Fingerpointing Has Begun at CBS). Well, it would seem the Kerry Campaign is giving her a helpful push too, in order to distance themselves from the ongoing scandal, according to an AP report (Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer:

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

All too often I think the charges of media bias are overblown or don't take into account various institutional issues, etc., etc. Sometimes, however, the media just hands their critics something to tear at.

Non-registration link for story (Kerry Adviser Talked to Burkett).

UPDATE 1855 PT

USA Today has much more (and don't they have their own tale to tell?) (CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart):

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE 2345 PT

USA Today does indeed have a story to tell, an extraordinarily bizarre one (CBS backs off Guard story):

After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic. "This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie," he said.

After keeping the copies for a couple of days, he said he drove to a location he would not specify, about 100 miles from his ranch, to put them "in cold storage." Burkett said he took the action because he believed the papers were politically explosive and made him nervous. "I treated them like absolute TNT," he said. "They looked to me like they were devastating."

Burkett was the source of the memos for USA Today, but his story certainly raises many more questions. For example, there is the possibility that CBS News producer Mapes had two of the documents weeks before getting copies of all six:

Ultimately, Burkett decided to turn over the documents to one of the most persistent journalists, CBS producer Mary Mapes, sometime in August. He and his wife met Mapes and CBS reporter Mike Smith at a pizza restaurant a few miles from their ranch. At first he gave them only two of the six documents, which Mapes said she planned to have analyzed for authenticity, according to Burkett.

Burkett said he passed the rest of the documents to Smith around Sept. 5, at a drive-in restaurant near Baird.

Read the whole, sorry thing.

The Drudge Report is publishing what is claimed to be Dan Rather's statement acknowledging that there is not enough proof that the CBS memos are authentic:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

I'm going to say it again. Investigating the documents and their source is not good enough. If we are to trust CBS News, we have to know that they will vigorously pursue legitimate and credible questions about their reporting. The response of CBS News to criticism has hardly been consistent with "investigative reporting without fear or favoritism." The fear was palpable. I would suggest that there are some things that are more important to CBS News' commitment to report fairly and truthfully: Covering Their Ass.

How long will it be before CBS News acknowledges that its response to criticism was seriously flawed and deserving of investigation?

There is a rumor that a former colleague of Dan Rather at CBS Evening News has said, after speaking with executives at CBS News, "the consensus is that Dan Rather may be forced to fall on his sword." See, Mickey Kaus Degradation Spreads!; Colby and Beyond! Rather's colleagues: Rather "to fall on his sword"; Mayflower Hill Blog ***CBS EXCLUSIVE***.

I have no idea whether this rumor is true or not, but eventually the question of Dan Rather falling on his sword will be raised.

Two points.

First, if Dan Rather has to fall on his sword it won't be because he erred in the original report, unless the problems with his involvement in vetting the story are overwhelmingly clear. If he has to fall on his sword it will be because of the stonewalling after the fact. Rather's vigorous denials that the criticisms were valid, the stories' critics partisan, after-the-fact expert shopping to support a crumbling story, and insistance that the story was true, though the documents might be forgeries will be what has done him in. In Greek tragedies, they called it "hubris."

Second, my personal view is that this isn't about Dan Rather so much as it is about CBS News as an organization. Dan Rather clearly plays an important role as the narrator and overly-aggressive defender of the report, but CBS News is too large an organization for even a single prominent individual, like Rather, to be entirely responsible. The producer of the piece, Mapes, will certainly be scapegoated, but all of CBS News is implicated in the stonewalling. Are there no editors at CBS Evening News? Who vetted and interviewed the second string experts Glennon and Katz? Dan Rather was not the anchor on the CBS Evening News on Saturday the 11th, when the show misleadingly seem to claim that a respected document examiner, Philip Bouffard, had changed his mind about the authenticity of the documents. Who was in charge of that report?

There are many other questions about CBS News' response to be answered in the coming days and weeks.

UPDATE 2220 PT

The NY Times reports that CBS News is ready to acknowledge that the documents are forgeries (CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say):

Those officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins, and that it was mounting an intensive news investigation of where they came from....

People at the network said it was now possible that officials would open a formal internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report, which officials now say they are beginning to believe was too flawed to have gone on the air.

An investigation into where the documents came from and how they got on the air is only part of the solution. An investigation into how and why CBS News lowered its standards in order to steadfastly defend the documents after valid and credible criticism had been raised must also be part of the investigation if CBS News is to regain its credibility.

CBS staff members are now leaking like crazy to the big media press covering Rathergate in order to get their version of the story out. I'll have an update about CBS News' response in a much more indepth post, but I think it important to note that the fingerpointing has begun (always a bad sign).

The Washington Post (annoying reg. req.) (In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries)

None of the analysts, including the fourth, James J. Pierce of California, provided the network with a written report before the broadcast. Howard [a 60 Minutes executive] said Mapes told him the analysts' concerns had been addressed. [emphasis added]

Guess Mapes is going to be taking the fall.

On Tuesday, Sept. 7, as Rather sat down in a CBS studio with former Texas lieutenant governor Barnes, the top brass was turning its attention to the explosive story. Heyward, the news division chief, met with Senior Vice President Betsy West; executive producer Howard, who had taken over in June after shifting from the program's Sunday edition; Mapes; senior broadcast producer Mary Murphy; and Esther Kartiganer, whose job is to ensure that interviews are not edited in a misleading way.

"All of us asked questions," Heyward said.

"We asked core questions -- about reliability, authenticity, motivation, could the source have had access to the documents," West said. The executives were satisfied by Mapes's answers, and she began writing the script. [emphasis added]

Yep. Mapes is going down.

Of course, nothing yet answers the questions I've raised about CBS News response to the scandal. Was Mapes in charge of CBS News spokespeople? Was Mapes in charge of hiring Glennon and Katz as "experts" for last Monday's CBS Evening News broadcast? Did Mapes write the CBS Evening News stories defending the broadcast with advocacy instead of reporting?

See also, the LA Times (annoying reg. req.) (In the Rush for a Scoop, CBS Found Trouble Fast).

On Thursday, the Washington Post (annoying reg. req.) had a live online chat with washingtonpost.com Chief Political Correspondent Terry Neal (Talking Points Live: Terry Neal). Responding to a question regarding Rathergate, Neal said:

The bottom line is, for however badly CBS and Dan Rather seem to have screwed up, it was the aggressive reporting of the media--and especially the Washington Post (Michael Dobbs, Howie Kurtz, et al)--that revealed the problems with the memos in the first place.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, indeed anyone following the story at virtually any level whatsoever, it was blogs that broke the story.

I don't want to give Neal a hard time, but he's the political correspondent for the washingtonpost.com. Perhaps he should be paying a little more attention to the blogosphere.

In any case, by the end of the 1-hour chat, Neal had been corrected:

New York, N.Y.: I agree with your point about not blaming the entire media for CBS's bad judgement, but in terms of digging into the story of whether they were fakes -- didn't that start in the blogs?

Terry Neal: You know raise a good question. And to be honest, I'm not sure of the answer. I don't know who the first person or people were to raise the issue. Either way, it can't be denied that the mainstream media has been aggressive in its reporting of the memo mess, whether it was broken there or in the blogs first.

_______________________

Washington, D.C. : The aggressive reporting of Howard Kurtz and Michael Dobbs only came after the work of bloggers who uncovered the whole mess.

Terry Neal: I'm getting a lot of notes like this...See my previous answer. And allow me, as a mainstream media guy, to give credit were credit is due. Kudos to the bloggers!