Best of the Web Today - January 10, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
The CBS Report
Let's give credit where due: Despite wide speculation to the contrary (including in this column), CBS did not play cute and release the report on the fabricated-documents scandal on a Friday afternoon, or withhold the actual report. The network came clean this morning, releasing the independent panel's report (link in PDF), exhibits and appendices, and a letter from CEO Leslie Moonves (in PDF and HTML) describing the personnel shifts the report spurred. (You can also find the report and supporting documents here.)
It'll take awhile to digest this fully; the report runs 234 pages, not including the 47 exhibits and four appendices. But the gist, as the network itself reports, is that "CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece," then "compounded that failure with a 'rigid and blind' defense." Just as blogger John Ellis predicted back in September, segment producer Mary Mapes got the ax, while Dan Rather and CBS News president Andrew Hayward survived. The network also asked three lower-level executives to resign, and Moonves's letter implies that Rather's decision to retire as "CBS Evening News" anchorman was related to the scandal.
The report declares "highly inappropriate" Mapes's calling Kerry aide Joe Lockhart at the behest of source Bill Burkett, who "had pressed her to arrange for him to be put in touch with someone from the Kerry presidential campaign so that he could provide the campaign with strategic advice on how to rebut the attacks by the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' group." It also attributes the bad reporting to "a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story about President Bush's TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] service."
But although the panel "found certain actions that could support" the view that the decision to pursue and air the story was politically motivated, it "cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its content." CBS takes this as vindication, as Moonves's letter makes clear:
We are also gratified that the Panel, after extensive analysis and consideration, has found that, while CBS News made numerous errors of judgment and execution in this story, these mistakes were not motivated by any political agenda. As the Report states, "The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias."
This looks like a mistake on CBS's part. The panel's finding that there's no basis for an "accusation" is a lawyerlike one, and CBS shouldn't be satisfied that the panel didn't prove bias beyond a reasonable doubt. The report notes that several other news organizations were also pursuing the "story":
In fact, USA TODAY on September 9 published a similar story relying on the same Killian documents, but has not been as criticized for its story as CBS News has been for the September 8 Segment. The Panel recognizes that some will see this widespread media attention not as evidence that 60 Minutes Wednesday was not motivated by bias but instead proof that all of mainstream media has a liberal bias. That is a perception beyond the Panel's assignment.
Beyond the panel's assignment, yes, but it should not be beyond CBS's concern if the network wishes to restore its credibility as an unbiased source of news.
If Only They Had One of Those Newfangled Spell Checkors
"Some critics said the documents were most probably forgeries prepared on a modern word processer."--CBSNews.com, Jan. 10
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Another journalistic scandal of sorts erupted late last week, when USA Today reported that columnist and talk-show host Armstrong Williams had received $240,000 from a public relations firm working on behalf of the Education Department in exchange for promoting the No Child Left Behind Act. "The contract required Williams to comment on Bush's program on his TV and radio show, to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige and to produce radio spots that aired on his show."
Williams is now an ex-columnist; his syndicate dropped him in response to the revelation. "Williams said he deeply regrets his actions," today's USA Today reports:
"It's important that I have a credible voice and that I'm not perceived as being paid for what I say," he said. "This is my responsibility. I blame no one, I get the message, and I will be better."
"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," he told the paper last week--which makes one wonder just what the Education Department thought it was getting for our money.
By any definition of journalistic ethics, this is an astonishing breach; yet it's quite possible Williams honestly didn't realize what he did was wrong. His background, after all, is not in journalism; as the initial USA Today report notes, he runs a PR firm, the Graham Williams Group. Some journalists, such as NBC's Andrea Mitchell, see a broader problem here. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, she said:
I think that the lines are so blurred. We have to also take a step back and ask, you know, "When did the lines become confusing to people, between what a real journalist is and commentary, analysis or political figures being used as commentators?"
Another way of looking at it, though, is that amid the profusion of new media, this is a competitive advantage of the "mainstream media." Whatever other problems they have, established news organizations have strong codes of ethics, so that readers and viewers can be reasonably sure their employees are not on the take.
A Step Toward Arab Democracy
Palestinian Arabs went to the polls yesterday, three weeks before Iraqis are scheduled to do the same. And, as Joshua Muravchik notes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, it isn't only Arabs living under occupation who are getting a taste of democracy. Lebanon plans parliamentary elections this spring. "These are nothing new, but for the first time, a multiethnic opposition to the Syrian puppet regime might actually win a significant share." Votes are also scheduled later in the year in Egypt, Yemen and Oman. Even Saudi Arabia plans to hold elections over the next few months, albeit only for municipal posts.
All this is still a long way from full Western democracy, but Muravchick says it's an "extraordinary moment" nonetheless:
The fact is that even though the war on terror and the intervention in Iraq have driven American popularity in the Arab world to a nadir, President Bush's strategy of fomenting democracy in the Middle East is gaining traction. Washington's new advocacy of democratization, reinforced by economic and diplomatic initiatives as well as its military presence, has made authoritarian governments squirm and has emboldened reformers.
Not that the Palestinian election was problem-free; the New York Sun reports from Jerusalem that Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Yasser Arafat "amid low turnout and allegations of vote fraud and voter abuse."
In one incident, the Associated Press reports from Ramallah, "five Palestinian gunmen burst into a Palestinian election office, and fired into the air. . . . Palestinian officials said the men were upset that some of their relatives' names had been left off voter registration lists in the West Bank, preventing them from voting." At least these guys take the Second Amendment seriously.
Fatah Fatuity
In an election report from Gaza, the New York Times engages in a curious bit of rewriting history:
Fatah was founded by Mr. Arafat. The name means "conquest," and is a reverse acronym for the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine. It has a nationalist rather than Islamist foundation, with the stated goal of an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, leading to Israeli and Palestinian states side by side.
That seems odd. Why would a group call itself "conquest" if its goal is merely an end to "Israel occupation"? But actually, as this Associated Press story notes, Fatah was founded in 1965, two years before Israel seized those lands in a war of self-defense. (At the time, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.)
Blogger Charles Johnson notes that the Fatah constitution actually calls for the "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence" and vows that its "armed struggle . . . will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated." It seems "conquest" is closer to the truth.
Weasel Watch
The Associated Press reports from Berlin:
Islamic extremists accused of plotting to kill Iraq's prime minister in Germany are smuggling battle-hardened fighters from Iraq to Europe, raising a potential new terrorist threat on the continent, according to German officials. . . . About 100 Ansar al-Islam supporters are in Germany alone, officials say.
Of course, Germany vigorously opposed the liberation of Iraq. We guess we'll soon see how well that appeasement strategy worked.
If You Hate Something, Set It Free?
"The world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's recently departed executive director," reports London's Sunday Times:
If the world's most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB "Buzzy" Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA's third most senior executive.
"You can make the argument that we're better off with him (at large)," Krongard said. "Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror."
Agence France-Presse carries a dispatch headlined "No Point Capturing bin Laden, Say Experts":
"We must not suppose that the day we catch bin Laden will mean the disappearance of terrorism," said French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.
"Catching him will change nothing for world terrorism, which is to be found today in networks in a large number of countries."
Steve Simon, former head of the Transnational Threats division of the US National Security Council, agrees: "Arresting bin Laden would change nothing," he said.
"Even if we would have arrested him in Tora Bora, it would have been already too late because he had already brought down the World Trade Center."
There is a point here: Capturing Osama bin Laden may or may not be necessary to win the war on terrorism, and it certainly wouldn't be sufficient. But the idea that it would be unhelpful or counterproductive is simply bizarre.
Idiotarian Tidal Wave--II
The Ayn Rand Institute has renounced an op-ed piece it published on its Web site late last month (we noted it last Monday) titled "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims." According to the institute's statement, "that piece was inappropriate and did not accurately convey the Institute's position." The "clarification" is even funnier than the original piece:
The ugly hand of altruism--the moral view that need entitles a person to the values of others, whose corresponding duty is to sacrifice their values for that person's sake--did show itself in the petulant demands of U.N. and other officials that "stingy" countries must give more. On their view, the U.S. has no right to the wealth it has produced, because it has produced it; the helpless victims of the tsunami have a right to that wealth, because they desperately need it. This perverse view is not an expression of goodwill toward man. In generously providing aid, the U.S. government should repudiate all such altruistic demands and refuse to associate with the organizations that make them.
In an ideal world, the statement says, "the government would not have the power to tax citizens and redistribute their wealth for the purpose of charity, domestic or foreign." But in the real world, it was "inappropriate to single out for condemnation the government's offer of assistance," even though "it is likely . . . that the increase in aid offered by our government in the days after the disaster stemmed not from benevolence but from surrender to the altruists' corrupt demand that the U.S. had not sacrificed enough."
Still, tsunami victims are more worthy beneficiaries of government largesse than "the antitrust division of the Justice Department, which persecutes successful businesses for out-competing other companies on a free market."
Well, we're sure glad they cleared that up.
The Associated Press, meanwhile, reports on a "positive side" of the tsunami. "By washing away rampant development, it returned the beaches to nature":
Greg Ferrando glistened with sweat and sea water as he went for a barefoot jog up the immaculate white sand beach, where the tsunami has wiped away almost all signs of humanity.
"This whole area was littered with commercialism," said the 43-year-old from Maui, Hawaii. "There were hundreds of beach chairs out here. I prefer the sand." . . .
"Everyone is talking about it. It looks much better now," he said. "This looks a lot more like Hawaii now, where vendors aren't allowed on the beach."
Blogger Arthur Chrenkoff has a second roundup of dumb tsunami quotes.
Udder-ly Parochial
The Weekly Standard, following up on our item last week, offers a theory as to why Sen. Harry Reid picked the Hillside Dairy v. Lyons case for has baseless attack on Justice Clarence Thomas's intelligence:
The plaintiff-petitioners whom Justice Thomas would have ruled against in the Hillside case were out-of-state milk producers upset about protectionist regulatory practices by the state of California. No fair, argued Hillside Dairy, Inc., a family-run milk-cow complex headquartered in--where else?--Harry Reid's Nevada.
No wonder Reid had a cow.
Great Minds Think Alike--II
Following up on our item Friday on form letters opposing Social Security reform, readers sent us lots more examples:
o Diane Adis of Vallejo, Calif., in the Vallejo Times-Herald (second letter)
o Jack Edwards of Columbia, Miss., in the Hattiesburg American
o Scott Hanson of Portsmouth, Va., in the Eastern Shore News
o Elizabeth MacNabb of Perryville, Ky., in the Advocate Messenger of Danville
o Roger Littlefield of Claremore, Okla., in the Claremore Daily Progress
o J. Hant of Truckee, Calif., in the Sierra Sun (second letter)
o Elaine Gima of Kula, Hawaii, in the Maui News
o Jilly Goldman of Kihei, Hawaii, also in the Maui News--on the same day!
One paper that apparently didn't fall for this scam is the Record Searchlight of Redding, Calif., whose opinion editor, Bruce Ross, writes us: "When I got nine copies of that letter on the same day, I suspected that something was up." The source turns out to be Democrats.org, official Web site of the Democratic National Committee. We guess they were a bit too effective in Redding.
What Would Youths Do Without Experts, Dude?
"Experts: Marijuana Use 'Impairing Youths' "--headline, North County Times (Escondido, Calif.), Jan. 9
Homelessness Rediscovery Watch
"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000
"In 2004, the number of homeless deaths in Seattle grew to 152, a list of names that took 52 minutes to read during a recent annual candlelight memorial."--Associated Press, Jan. 8, 2005
Note that at this rate it takes more than 20 seconds to read each name.
Shouldn't Produce Be Refrigerated?
"Plum Job Opportunities Await Old Cabinet"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 10
White Trash
"Court Won't Block KKK From Highway Cleanup"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 10
The Continuing Crisis
"President Bush had great success in his first term by defining crises that demanded decisive responses," reports the Washington Post in an "analysis" piece, which notes that "Democrats contend Bush . . . exaggerated the nation's economic problems to justify tax cuts."
Hmm, would those be the same Democrats who kept insisting last year that the economy was the worst since the Hoover administration? |
