Centerfield

Joe Gandleman feels that Dan Rather has gotten off with a shrug of the shoulders.

I don't agree. He's leaving his main job as a result, whether he admits it or not. Piling on the humiliation would be overkill.

I think the report is a partial whitewash with some trophy heads. But then again, that's about the best I ever expected.

Dan should join Armstrong Williams in launching an independent news/commentary show ala Hannity and Colmes. Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass could be the writers, and Mary Mapes can produce. Jack Kelley can be the story editor. And David Rosen and Aaron Tonken can handle the business end of things. :-)

Yeah, my sense is that the stepping down was in lieu of crucifixion. Besides, Dan Rather's job one was as a news reader. He said it, but he didn't create it. I think CBS did the right thing.

Conservative critics who predicted they'd gloss it over, do nothing but rap a knuckle or two, and go on with business as usual should acknowledge that this is a step in the right direction. Even if they also maintain that CBS has to show more going forward in order to overcome the taint this has given them.

Tully, the fired Betsy is the one you called out as the likely prime mover, right?

Mapes and West. Mapes has been panting to hang one on Bush forever, and obviously threw ethics out the window long ago in that pursuit. She's also the one who called Lockhart to give the Kerry campaign notice. West pushed the story past doubts and facilitated the coverup, stalling and dodging and helping hide the evidence of forgery and falsity, both before and after.

Mapes was the prime mover from the beginning. It was her head I predicted would be on the pole, no matter what. They simply couldn't NOT crucify Mapes.

Rather went with what he was handed. He's the talking head. His crime, if any, was simply really really wanting to believe. (IMHO--YMMV)

What's sad and pathetic for the four fired employees and their families is that if the memos were in fact true, they probably still wouldn't have swung the election to Kerry. So basically their careers were damaged for a lie.

meant to write a pointless lie.

So...conservatives got what they wanted.

Now will they hold their President and his people to the same standard?

I watched CBS news tonight. Bob Schieffer was subbing for Dan Rather, who will return tomorrow. The first story was the CBS memos.

Tully - I missed your post earlier, it's hilarious.

Everybody who argues that Rummy should resign, after firing Gen. K. in Jan 04 over Abu Ghraib in fall 03, MUST think Rather should resign, or be totally sacked.

For me, Rummy did enough. How to treat un-uniformed Saddam army killers who haven't surrendered, and how to get any info out of them (which can save lives) is a really tough issue. After 1 Feb, it will be up to Shi'a dominated elected Iraq gov't to decide; prolly "usual" Arab prohibitions against torture will return.

"Accountability" for Bush: like free elections in Afghanistan, in Palestine, and in Iraq? Even Saudi Arabia is having some municipal elections. Not perfect, but lots of strategic success.

The real question is will the Left give any credit to Bush for getting results that were WAY beyond Clinton?

Tom, if you'd like to read a good, lengthy discussion about Bush, Iraq and spreading democracy, click my name or use the URL below.

http://www.libertarianleanings.com/2004/12/iraq_strategic__1.html

Bush got results that went way beyond Clinton?

I'll say. Bush has put us into a complete mess in Iraq. We can argue the specifics of the mess if you like...but the reality is that we are in a really big mess.

If you consider that "results"...then yeah...Bush has gone way beyond Clinton.

CBS held people accountable for making bad decisions. That's head and shoulders over what Bush has done. When will conservatives hand out credits for that?

For so many heads to roll over getting a single story wrong is strict accountability.

The Bush Administration, on the other hand, does not punish failure--only disloyalty.

CBS held people accountable for making bad decisions only after they were called on it. The bad decisionmaking determination was not made by CBS itself.

Carla, I haven't read your response on PE yet. I'm gone for the day so I'll get to it tomorrow.

and btw I believe the Bush administration is/may eventually be guilty of similar circumstances.

Just an obvious point or two: It's not about Bush. Using the Rather/CBS/MemoGate story to springboard over to Bush-bashing is both tedious and childish, sheer robotic partisan echo-chambering. "Moral equivalence" is a fool's game when you're comparing apples and oranges, and even more so when comparing apples and rocks. Bush isn't the story here. Rather, Mapes, and CBS are.

Rather will have to live with the damage he did to his career and reputation, to his network, and to the MSM. If the network chooses to keep him on in some capacity, then they get to share in that. As is proper. While Mapes & crew could no doubt take advantage of their present freedom to explore exciting new career opportunities in the food service and hospitality industries, I predict they'll end up in PR/lobbying jobs more in line with their previous experience and natural inclinations. And probably at higher salaries.

Just an obvious point or two: It's not about Bush.

Tully, I know. I wrote what I did sort of to keep Carla off my back. The connection is not commensurate.

It's not about Bush..?

The entire TANG story is about Bush. But the story itself is about accountability.

I don't see how CBS only held people accountable after they were called on it. They were called on stuff almost immediately after the story aired. They let people go when their investigation showed improper journalism. That's being accountable.

Today, we see that the US is dropping the search for WMD, the main premise given to us for going into Iraq. The main architects of this notion are either rewarded with medals or job upgrades in the Bush Administration. None are held accountable the way CBS is doing.

Thank you for proving my point, Carla.

Thank you for dodging mine, Tully.

The subject of the story is irrelevant to the basic ethics involved. CBS was only willing to be somewhat accountable after an investigation spurred by their feet being held to the fire when a massive preponderance of evidence was publicly held forth against their claims, and even then their "investigators" were technically attorneys in their employ, ethically bound to not harm their client, CBS. That they offered some (appropriate) heads on a platter is nice, but it would have been nicer had they maintained the level of ethics and expectation of same that would have prevented it in the first place. Despite knowing they didn't have a leg to stand on, they still took over three months to (barely, in a non-committal lawyerly fashion) admit they screwed up big-time.

Namely, that they took absolutely unverified and unverifiable material second-hand from a known unreliable and thoroughly biased source, that in turn was obtained from a totally anonymous source, and treated it as gospel, defending it even when they knew it was utterly unsupportable under any objective standard. That they "verified" that "evidence" by actively ignoring all contradictory testimony and evidence and the advice of their own experts. That they "confirmed" it by soliciting ambiguous statements from people who had not seen the material, and selectively using those statements out of context. Material that bears indisputable evidence on the face of it that it is modern forgeries, and poor ones at that.

Regardless of their motivations or the subject of the story, that is a clear and obvious active subornation of anything resembling journalistic ethics. They are left with no option but damage control, and they have done their best at that while side-stepping as much as they could. The "accountability" they have exercised is about the minimum they could realistically manage without a total stonewall.

Does that address your point, Carla?

Regardless of their motivations or the subject of the story, that is a clear and obvious active subornation of anything resembling journalistic ethics. They are left with no option but damage control, and they have done their best at that while side-stepping as much as they could. The "accountability" they have exercised is about the minimum they could realistically manage without a total stonewall.

Yes Tully, that addresses my point.

But if I took your paragraph above...and changed a few words:

Regardless of their motivations or the reasons for invasion, that is a clear and obvious active subornation of anything resembling honesty or ethics. They are left with no option but damage control, and they have done their best at that while side-stepping as much as they could. The "accountability" they should have exercised hasn't happened and they have no choice but to put up a total stonewall.

How about "When caught with their pants down they did what they could without slitting their throats." :-)