CBS Retracts, Apologizes

[Bill Glasheen]

CBS says it cannot vouch for the authenticity of documents

NEW YORK (AP) — CBS apologized Monday and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a 60 Minutes story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.
Chief anchor Dan Rather apologized for "a mistake in judgment." (Related: Full text of statements)

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly.

***

- USA Today

Bushwacked again, Danno?



- Bill

[RACastanet]

[JaySal]

Hello All:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I think this is the second time "CBS" has run and printed a story that was not true. If I remember correctly a few years back "60 Mintues" ran a story on the Tobacco Industry that also turned out to be false.

I for one no longer see "CBS", has having journalistic credibility.

Once is a mistake, Twice is not. Especially by professionals.

Take care - Jay Sal

[IJ]

(Agreed that CBS goofed and owed everyone an apology. Who was it that staged those truck explosions with incendiary devices and got caught with that fabricated story?)

Bill, I'm sure you understand the delay in apology until all the facts were in, much as Bush employed with his two staged comments on abu ghraib? There's a "fool me twice" theme going on too, since the administration had received reports of overseas prisoner abuse before--previously at Gitmo? These are also professionals. Who's credibility suffers there?

[RACastanet]

"Who was it that staged those truck explosions with incendiary devices and got caught with that fabricated story?"

That was NBC. They apologized big time on the air during prime time. They truly riggrd the explosions and got caught! Bad GM? No, bad NBC.

I do believe the producer behind that was fired.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm not sure what you mean, Ian. Jay and Rich speak for themselves. Please read what I wrote (and what I didn't write).

This is Dan's second attempt at embarassing an acting Bush presidency or vice presidency. The first attempt was in real time with George HW Bush about the arms-for-hostages thing. He lured HW on the air - under false pretenses - to ambush him about the issue.

When CBS requested an interview with Bush, the following letter was sent to the Bush campaign:

"Part of our early coverage of the 1988 presidential election has been a series of candidate profiles produced for 'CBS Evening News.' We purposely saved your profile for last. Dan Rather is very interested in your profile, and has decided to do it himself."

VPOTUS got wind of his intentions, and was ready. The rest is history.

Rather Bush Interview Transcript

The written transcrpit doesn't do it justice. Dan left the interview rather upset, and cut the VP off.

As for the National Guard "records" on GWB, at least CBS retracted and apologized for the false documents. Good for them.

Moore, on the other hand... THAT is a different story. He'd prefer to let his lies hang out there, hoping that some of them will stick. That brand of premeditated deception is in a league all its own.

This is progress.

Talk is cheap though. Consequences speak louder than words.

- Bill

[Panther]

Just an FYI sidenote... Forgery of Federal Documents is a 10+ year offence. And passing forged Federal documents is equivalent to forging them.

It strongly appears that CBS, Dan Rather, and those involved in this very easily seen false story that was completely politically motivated are caught "red-handed".

Since it wouldn't change anything at any of the other networks, why shouldn't the Feds prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and, until the truth comes out and the case is resolved, shut down CBS's news department.

Not censorship... the other news outlets, media and networks can carry own, but it's about time that the huge bias and the outrageous fabrications that seem to be common practice get stopped cold. Give the news... give it in a neutral fashion... do not embellish... do not fabricate, create or cause the news...

And while I'm on the subject, I'm getting really tired of hearing about something that happened in east nowhere... That's not local news here... it's not national news... it's not international news... It's only local news in east nowhere and if it was important to folks, they'd live in east nowhere or hear about it from someone they know in east nowhere... I want local news, national news, and international news... not news that's only news because the networks can play it to push an agenda or create the impression that something is "an epidemic" or is a "big problem"... Maybe it's a big problem in east nowhere, but fercryinoutloud, I don't really care until it's on the path to being a problem locally. Comeon... Even the reports from Boston talk about things that are problems in Boston, but for everyone else in the area, who cares... I don't care that someone saw a bobcat somewhere in a backyard! Good grief... call animal control and get over it! It's NOT news... There's no "epidemic"...

[IJ]

I don't appreciate fabricated news either Panther, but what I would worry more about is the government running about deciding who will "Give the news... give it in a neutral fashion... do not embellish... do not fabricate, create or cause the news..." Yet the government's control of the media during the current war is the greatest yet in our history if I'm not mistaken. Everyone had to be "embedded" and led to the stories felt appropriate. The terror warning is racheted up like the wildfire risk sometimes on the basis of very stale data. Then we have the results of a major busy of pot paraphrenalia distributors, conducted during wartime as a... necessity? distraction? These illustrate to me how we already have the goverment creating and managing news, which otherwise has become a corporate commodity (see below). I'm under no illusion that this is a new phenomenon, I just wouldn't want to see it widespread. Perhaps we can use the existing libel and slander laws to address the problem of fabricated news instead of doing something new.

It's bad enough as it stands already--we get most of our news from a few major corporations whose coverage cannot help but reflect their corporate interests. Or perhaps it's corporate disinterests: sparse coverage on vital economic and political developments that make room for stories on Britany Spear's latest marriage and the status of Janet JAckson's right boob and whatever police chase occured 1,500 miles away. .

[RACastanet]

Ian said: "It's bad enough as it stands already--we get most of our news from a few major corporations whose coverage cannot help but reflect their corporate interests."

I beg to differ at least from the NBC/GE perspective. The GE attitude towards NBC News was and is 'hands off'! While somewhat less left of center than ABC's Jennings and CBS's Rather, Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams are pretty much in charge of the direction the News group takes.

GE is about as big a global conglomerate as there is (#1 in the world in market value), and is a manufacturer and exporter/importer of products and services. That is unlike CBS/Viacom and ABC/Disney, that are more of an entertainment enterprise. Those two companies do seem to have a much different mindset the GE/NBC.

Since GE is out there producing jet engines for the military, and MRI machines for the health care system, it could impact sales of its products using the News group. I have never seen it do that. Also, because GE is such a large and visible company, it cannot afford to have the SEC on its case.

GE and NBC's rule #1 is 'never do anything that you do not want on the front page of the Wall Street Journal'. As a company, they are good in that regard. However, ask CBS what happens when you try to push idealogy... WSJ, Newsweek, Washington Post, New York Times and more had Mr. Rather on the front page.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

the government's control of the media during the current war is the greatest yet in our history if I'm not mistaken

Oh my, Ian, that's a doozy!

Not too long ago, I read The Great Influenza by John M. Barry. Read it some time, Ian, you'll enjoy it. Anyhow, WWI was typical of the way wars were covered in the past. Information control was considered to be a vital part of the war effort.

In WWII, the U.S. suffered a humiliating defeat - long before D-day. Indeed, it happened on the shores of Great Britain, where they were practicing for the Normandy Invasion. Germans got wind of what they were doing, and sent some U boats over to sink a number of U.S. boats. And you know what? IT WAS KEPT FROM THE U.S. NEWS!! Why? It was felt that this would be a psychological blow to the significant war effort at home, where housewives were being recruited to run factories, build weapons, and help feed both the troops overseas and the kids at home.

Not today.

Everyone had to be "embedded" and led to the stories felt appropriate.

This imbedding of the press in the 3-week invasion was the most detailed press coverage ever of a war. Period.

Did the military send Hiraldo home for revealing troop locations? You bet your sweet ass they did. Did it ever occur to him that he put American lives in danger?

Various news services go out of the way to embarass certain politicians, the efforts of our soldiers, and the good will of many people overseas doing positive things in a difficult environment.

I get XM radio now, and have a number of different news services programmed. It's really interesting listening to or viewing a PRIMARY SOURCE on a news story, and then go from network to network and watch the spin. A classic example is Allawi's speech to Congress today. I heard the whole thing from beginning to end. Then I got to see what was reported (or not reported) on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and the WSJ. It's nothing short of amazing, Ian. These news services have all the information they need to inform us concerning Iraq, and many of them don't. They do what they damn well please to suit their own end.

And then there is Al Jazeera....

Don't blame the government, Ian. Nobody's holding the news services back. On the contrary, a number of them are out to embarass the government by any means possible.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Pehaps it did not occur to you, Ian, that information is a weapon in wartime.

First, invasion plans are the most carefully guarded secret in a military campaign. Just before D-Day, efforts of both the enemy (Germany) and our press to guess when and where the invasion would be were intense. Fortunately for us, we fooled the Germans and hit them in a relative weak spot on the beaches of Normandy. And yet hundreds of Americans lost their lives on that first day.

Desert Storm (the re-taking of Kuwait from the Iraqis) had many "secrets." One of them was just how the U.S. and the coalition were going to attack the Iraqis, who had multiple lines of defense set up. The press conjectured that we would lose hundreds of lives going up against these "battle hardened" soldiers who were dug in so well. Fortunately "the secret" of how we would face them was kept. They did an end run around the lines of defense (within the border of Saudi Arabia) and entered Kuwait behind the lines of defense. Keeping that secret made it one of the biggest routes in military history. Indeed President Bush called the attack off as Saddam's army was fleeing back to Iraq, and being picked off like fish in a pond. Imagine what would have happened in terms of U.S. lives lost if the Iraqis had gotten the plans ahead of time.

Meanwhile, even the folks at Saturday Night Live understood the importance of keeping military plans secret. They did a spoof of a press conference, where reporter after reporter was asking the presidential press secretary the exact date and location of the coalition invasion. The answer was always the same, and yet the next reporter would come up with an even more ridiculous question. It was truly one of the funnier skits they've done.

And there were no "embedded reporters" in that end-run invasion.

But it goes beyond this, Ian. The Vietnamese learned that they might lose the military war, but that they would win the psychological war. Vietnam is a communist country today - from north to south - because the mishandling of the war combined with the constant news of bodybags coming back home wore down the U.S. support for the war. Towards the end, everyone wanted out.

And now I have hundreds of Vietnamese neighbors in this town. And I've had Vietnamese karate students who lost parents to "reeducation camps", never to be heard from again.

This is what Osama Bin Laden has been preaching, Ian. He studied the history of Vietnam. He saw how the Soviets gave up in Afghanistan. He watched us run from conflict after conflict in the last few decades. Americans, he preached, are psychologically weak. They can be defeated through the horror of war and terror.

Why do you think Zarkawi is beheading innocent civilians? And here we have a case where the press is feeding his propaganda machine. Presidential candidates have to pay to get their political message across, and Zarkawi gets free bandwidth on the network news and over the internet. These people aren't stupid, Ian. They can't win militarily, but they believe they can defeat the U.S. psychologically. And when/if the U.S. leaves before Iraq is a strong, sovereign nation, they will create a hellhole that'll make Taliban Afghanistan look like Romper Room.

Indeed, information is a valuable weapon. And the psychological "health" of a nation is vital to a war effort. The lives of troops depend on it in the short run, and our existence in a world of Islamofascist terror will be affected by it in the long run.

Read John Barry's book, and see the pros and cons of controlling information in wartime. It's not a simple subject.

- Bill

[cxt]

Bill

Interesting observation about how the media grossly distorted (my term not yours) events in Vietnam.

I noticed that Eddie Adams-of Pulitzer Prize fame, has passed away.

He was the photog that shot one of the most infamous pictures of the War.

In which a handcuffed man was shot in the head by a member of South Veitnams military.

What Adams included in the shot and was later removed prior to publication--and something Adams made repeated statements over the last 30 years about.

Was the man that was shot had been caught after murdering the entire family of one of the soldiers.

Women, children, old folks--everyone.

Harsh, yes--but unjust?

Don't think it was.

Adams himself stated on a number of time that had he known what use the picture was going to be put he would not have taken it.

Indeed he also stated that--directly speaking about the man who pulled the trigger--"The guy was a hero"

(CNN obit sept 19th)

I just don't think folks really understand how much media coverage seriously effects perception and outcome.

There was an entire film "How the media lost Vietnam" that details the pro and con of such media attention.

Along with other glaring examples was film shot of a single materials transport plane being shot down.

All three major networks used the same shot---but from different angles.

Along with voice over that indicated that MULTIPLE planes were being shot down-in droves.

Again, not even close to accurate---but a great shot

[Bill Glasheen]

cxt

I've been looking for that photograph online. Do you have a link? It's very powerful without being excessively morbid, and I wanted people to see it (on another thread) to illustrate the psychological impact. If you or others could find it, I'd appreciate it.

Another good example of the power of reporting (for the better or for the worse) is the film footage of an American special forces soldier being dragged through the streets in Somalia. Read the book (or see the movie) Black Hawk Down, and you understand the backdrop far better than just getting that gruesome film clip on the 6:30 news.

And remember the pictures of Iraqis in the Sunni Triangle hanging and beating the burned bodies of American civilian contractors?

Understand I am not saying that all such reporting is either bad or distorted. But it has an effect, and there truly is a responsibility that goes along with recording both the information and its context, and deciding what to report.

Another thing to think about... Remember when I started a thread about the Berg beheading? I discussed having viewed the video online. Do you remember how strongly certain parties came online and accused me of psychological deficits? And yet...Ian thinks the government is controlling information too much in this war. Interesting, no?

It's not a simple subject.

- Bill

[cxt]

Bill

Sorry, no I don't.

Wish I did.

[RACastanet]

Bill said: "Fortunately for us, we fooled the Germans and hit them in a relative weak spot on the beaches of Normandy. And yet hundreds of Americans lost their lives on that first day."

Wrong order of magnitude. Hundreds were lost in the first hour alone. Thousands were lost on the first day.

Part of the disimformation was to advise the wrong date and location to highly ranked agents located in France. The Germans captured at least one, a female, and after literally tearing her apart, extracted the 'info'. As a result, Hitler believed that the Normandy invasion was a feint, even days into it, and held back his Panzer units. Had he committed the Panzers to Normandy, the beach head may not have been secured.

This was such a brutal method of misinformation, even a psychopath like Hitler could not believe the allies would do it.

As for the end around in Desert Storm, that was taken out of the civil war playbook of Gen Longstreet I believe. He did this at the Wilderness, near Richmond, and defeated a superior Union force.

The Marines spearheaded the direct assualt feint, and were almost too successful as they penetrated many miles into the Iraqi line in a short time. Schwartzkopf really gave his commanders hell for allowing the Marines to penetrate so far before the army's main force was ready.

Yes, the result was a turkey shoot and many US personnel had misgivings about blasting the sitting duck targets. Also, we owned the night, and the M1A1 tanks were using a round called the silver bullet.. Non explosive but made of spent uranium. It looks like a lawn dart. It travelled over 10,000 fps and was effective over two miles away, further than the Iraqis could see.

Imagine sitting in your line of tanks awaiting the Americans and suddenly they all start blowing up around you! Then the Marine Cobra Helos and Army Apache Helos and A10 Warthog planes with the vulcan gattling guns came in. Using 30mm spent uranium projectiles they totally decimated the Iraqi armor.

To my knowledge, not a single Marine Cobra was lost. Likewise, not a single M1a1 tank was lost, and that was the tank's first time in battle.

Rich