CBS Memogate Commission Report. 4 top CBS employees fired but Rather stays?

[Tigers2B1]

I’m trying to figure out why Dan Rather wasn’t fired. Maybe Rather just doesn’t deserve to be fired. Maybe, because he played such an insubstantial role in the CBS National Guard document story and CBS’ subsequent inaction, justifications, and other inaccuracies after the publication of that story. Problem is, it appeared that Rather was front and center defending the CBS story, almost it seems, to the point that he has become an integral part of that story.

So anyway, the long, long awaited independent CBS investigation regarding the handling of the CBS alleged “National Guard documents” showing preferential treatment of George W. Bush while in the Texas National Guard has finally been published. As a result, four senior CBS employees have been fired. Those fired are, of course, the now infamous Mary Mapes, Josh Howard, Executive Producer of 60 Minutes, Mary Murphy, Senior Broadcast Producer, and Betsy West, Senior Vice President.

The Panel’s report lists 10 of “the most serious defects in the reporting and production” of the Bush National Guard 60 Minutes segment. The Panel’s top 10 were -

1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;

2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;

3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;

4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;

5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;

6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;

7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;

8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;

9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and

10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry - a clear conflict of interest - that created the appearance of a political bias.

The report then lists six of “the more egregious shortcomings during the aftermath.” Those are as follows -

1. The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;

2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;

3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;

4. The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;

5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and

6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

This ‘Top 16’ list is located at pages 4 – 6 of the Panel’s Executive Summary located in the report.

Here’s a link to that report – the file is .pdf

CBS_Report.pdf

Yet, among the gore and blood, Dan Rather stays on at CBS. Here what CBS President Les Moonves says about the decision not to fire Dan Rather –

" He asked the right questions initially, but then made the same errors of credulity and over-enthusiasm that beset many of his colleagues in regard to this segment. He was convinced that the documents were authenticated because he was told in no uncertain terms that this was so. He defended the story over-zealously afterwards; again, he believed in a star associate with whom he had worked often, and to award-winning result. The Panel has found that his unwillingness to consider that CBS News and his colleague were in the wrong was a mistake, and that the broadcast would have benefited from a more direct involvement on Rather’s part.

Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken personal responsibility for his part in the broadcast. He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the CBS Evening News anchor chair in March of 2005, which will give him more time to concentrate on his reporting for CBS NEWS. After examining the report and thinking about its implications, we believe any further action would not be appropriate."

So, really, why wasn’t Dan Rather fired? Is Rather receiving preferential treatment at CBS because of his long standing status at that organization? No doubt, Dan Rather is the “face” of CBS News and as such, his firing would send a much more profound statement to the viewing public than the firing of four employees who were much more ‘behind the scene’ - less identified with CBS to our average citizen. Is CBS President Les Moonves being up front with us, les miserables? First, Rather didn’t want to “apologize,” if that in fact what it was, his superiors made suggestions that he apologize over his objections as I understand. In fact, Rather continued to support the documents as authentic long after very serious questions arose concerning just that. How did Rather do this? By citing CBS’ own experts on the subject (there were no CBS experts indicating these documents were authentic) and by calling the source of those documents “unimpeachable,” when the source was not revealed and there was no plan to reveal that source. In fact, the source, once finally reveal by CBS, was found to be the exact opposite of “unimpeachable.” Is it because Rather has “voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the CBS Evening News anchor” as stated by Les Moonves? Rather’s announcement that he would step down occurred some time ago and – Rather contends, is unconnected to Memogate. Yet, if these were honest considerations in allowing Rather to stay on - why not allow others to announce they will also “step down” at a later date rather than fire them on the day of the Panel’s report? Is the ‘face of CBS News’ being protected?

[rjung]

So, really, why wasn’t Dan Rather fired?

Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

Is it because Rather has “voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the CBS Evening News anchor” as stated by Les Moonves? Rather’s announcement that he would step down occurred some time ago and – Rather contends, is unconnected to Memogate.

Yeah, right. And the Iraq war was all about freeing the po’ repressed Iraqi people, sure…

Rather’s already screwed, but it seems some folks on the Right still need one final chunk of flesh from him.

[Tigers2B1]

@rjung

Ask Donald Rumsfeld.
Yeah, right. And the Iraq war was all about freeing the po’ repressed Iraqi people, sure…

Rather’s already screwed, but it seems some folks on the Right still need one final chunk of flesh from him.

Well let me stop what I’m doing for this — thank you rjung for yet another of his on-topic (Iraq) and thoughtful (see above) responses.

[John_Mace]

It could also be self-preservation for CBS. For many people Rather = CBS, but who even knows the people that were fired? It’s hard to imagine that Rather’s early retirement was NOT related to this issue, they just let him leave thru the front door rather than the back. If he got preferential treatment (I would guess he did) it was more a face saving act by CBS than anything else.

[cmkeller]

Tiger, in 2 months, the guy is going anyway. To give him the boot now would just be classless, even if he did theoretically deserve it. If he had no plans to leave, that’d be different.

[kanicbird]

I think this goes much deeper. The mindset that people have define their reallity. In Dan’s and others world that memo or something very simular MUST be true, regardless of the facts, as facts to the contrary will shatter their view of reality.

This is not to slam the left, as some of the right reality is that the Clintons off’ed Vince Foster (not personally but was involved in the murder/death) and that Clinton gave modern missile tech to China.

I am sure that Dan’s co-workers and uppers share Dan’s view of reallity and must accept that memo as fact to support that. They must however make a public statement saying that the problem we had is now corrected.

[Tigers2B1]

@cmkeller

Tiger, in 2 months, the guy is going anyway. To give him the boot now would just be classless, even if he did theoretically deserve it. If he had no plans to leave, that’d be different.

Why would it be “classless” in the case of Rather, who received NO disciplinary action, but not classless in the case of the other four top executives at CBS who received the boot yesterday?

Instead, they came down especially hard on Mary Mapes. In fact, Mary Mapes issued a statement following her firing and the Les Moonves (CBS President) memo in which she seemed described herself as a scapegoat in all of this.

…I am terribly disappointed in the conclusions of the report and its effects on the four of us who will no longer work at CBS News. I am disappointed as well for the entire organization. It has been my second family and I will miss my colleagues there.

I am shocked by the vitriolic scape-goating in Les Moonves’s statement. I am very concerned that his actions are motivated by corporate and political considerations . ratings rather than journalism. Mr. Moonves’s response to the review panel’s report and the panel’s assessment of the evidence it developed in its investigation combine not only to condemn me, but to put all investigative reporting in the CBS tradition at risk.

Well it could be that Rather didn’t receive any disciplinary action because, it seems, CBS decided to assign Rather’s blameworthiness on his gullibility, even though all of this occurred very near election day and during a very tight election race. They did this despite Rather’s actions and statements even after it became apparent there were very serious concerns regarding these documents. And despite Rather’s continuing unfounded statements regarding those documents and the sources of those documents.

IF Rather’s “retirement” is a result of Memogate he certainly took pains to cover that fact during his retirement announcement in November. Here’s what Rather had to say about his March 2005 “retirement” when announced in November 2004.

“No matter what you hear elsewhere, this was a mutual decision… The timing has to do with wanting to separate the decision to leave the anchor chair from the 60 MINUTES report.”

Yet, when read with Moonves’ statement that Rather would not be fired himself or even receive any displinary action –

…He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the CBS EVENING NEWS in March of 2005…

• it appears Rather just might be - yet again - fudging on the reasons for his “retirement.” So maybe it was a “voluntary” - sort of like that apology he made -

[cmkeller]

One way or another, what good will it do…except to humiliate a once-valued employee to “make a statement”…when he’ll be gone on two months anyway?

If he weren’t already leaving, then it would make sense to force him to. But if he’s leaving, and soon, there’s little that pushing the timetable up a few months will accomplish.

[manhattan]

Just to be clear, CM, it’s my understanding that Rather is not leaving – he’s simply giving up the anchor spot on The CBS Evening News. In particular, he’ll continue doing reports for 60 Minutes II.

If he were retiring entirely I’d agree with you. That he’s not is essentially an admission by CBS that the on-air talent are not real journalists, just pretty talking heads who read what the producers put in front of them.

[BrotherCadfael]

Rather’s retirement is “voluntary” in much the same sense that Nixon’s was… a delicious irony for those who appreciate such things…

[Tigers2B1]

@cmkeller

One way or another, what good will it do…except to humiliate a once-valued employee to “make a statement”…when he’ll be gone on two months anyway?

If he weren’t already leaving, then it would make sense to force him to. But if he’s leaving, and soon, there’s little that pushing the timetable up a few months will accomplish.

I’m not sure I understand your point. Why is it ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ or ‘the right thing’ to do when deciding to exclude Rather from all of this. If Rather was “once-valued” but no longer - fire him. Weren’t all of the four employees fired yesterday “once-valued” – aren’t all four probably “humiliated.” Why wasn’t there a ‘way out’ designed for those employees – as apparently there was for Rather. Let them “retire” from their positions within CBS. Note that at least one of the fired employees had worked for CBS for over 20 years. No one allowed her to hide her termination behind an excuse. Instead the biggest display possible was made of it yesterday – just after the release of the Panel’s report — least the connection be lost. All except Dan Rather that is – who received NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION - none. Instead, Rather is allowed to make an “unconnected” announcement of his March 2005 retirement from CBS NEWS in November. Was it that CBS needed to fired SOMEBODY in order to make that valued statement – yet, keep the damage to a minimum, no recognizable “faces” like Dan Rather. So maybe the CBS thinking was, “hell, why not the less powerful, less influential, less recognizable over the more so – better for CBS than completely fess-up and assign all blame where it ought to be.” It’s all just damn shameful IMO -

[cmkeller]

Tigers2B1:

I’m not sure I understand your point. Why is it ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ or ‘the right thing’ to do when deciding to exclude Rather from all of this.

It’s not a matter of morals or ethics, it’s just a matter of class, like not dancing one someone’s grave.

Nonetheless, given that manhattan has corrected my misconception about the nature of Rather’s career move, I now agree with the point of view in the OP.

[ITR_champion]

If he were retiring entirely I’d agree with you. That he’s not is essentially an admission by CBS that the on-air talent are not real journalists, just pretty talking heads who read what the producers put in front of them.

Well, yeah. The plain truth is that television talking heads have never been held to the same standards as print journalists.

This whole business would be easier to understand is you realize that the only thing unusual about the particular case of the forged memos is that the media paid a lot of attention to it. How many people in any news division have been fired for spreading lies about the death of Pat Tillman? About the falling statue in Iraq? About th cost of the prescription drug benefit? About…

[Tigers2B1]

Not true – Rather was up to his big ears in the Bush National Guard story. A story he had been pursuing as far back as at least 1999. In fact, according to the Panel’s report, Rather had done personal interviews with those supposedly involved in this story, both in 1999 and in 2004. Rather was no mere “talking head” where this story is concerned – And after the story aired and doubt arose, he was no “talking head” when it came to the defense of the source of those documents and their authenticity. Rather was an active participant throughout - Yet, one who bravely watches as four of his comrades bite the live bullet -

[Tigers2B1]

… and I add that Mary Mapes et al certainly appear to be the scapegoats in all of this – just as Mapes suggested in her response. Why? If the Panel’s conclusions can be trusted there could be no conclusions reached regarding ‘political bias’ and regarding the ‘authenticity’ of the National Guard documents – So, the question becomes, why was Mapes and the others fired - but not Danny Boy? Maybe CBS executives really, deep in their tiny, corporate hearts don’t believe it all, after all. Nothing but bullshit as far as the eye can see - IMO -

[ITR_champion]

Because, as has been said already in this thread, Rather is leaving his post in a couple months, so why bother? That’s why.

[manhattan]

@Tigers2B1

So, the question becomes, why was Mapes and the others fired - but not Danny Boy? Maybe CBS executives really, deep in their tiny, corporate hearts don’t believe it all, after all. Nothing but bullshit as far as the eye can see - IMO -

Well, I like my interpretation of events better than yours (otherwise I wouldn’t have it ), but under either scenario the answer is that Rather has been the public face of CBS for a generation (and, if one were cynical, one might surmise he has a long-term contract) and CBS feels that the damage they do themselves by continuing to keep him in their employee is less than the sum of the damage they do themselves by releasing him and the psychic cost of canning someone who had shown such loyalty to them over four decades and at least four corporate owners. That’s a guy you show some deference to.

[Tigers2B1]

@ITR champion

Because, as has been said already in this thread, Rather is leaving his post in a couple months, so why bother? That’s why.

And as also pointed out in this thread – he’s not leaving CBS — in fact, he’s going to the scene of the crimes----- 60 Minutes – where he’ll be able to spend more of his time. That sends an appropriate message. A ‘lesion’ to learn by. If Mapes and the others are “leaving” – Rather deserves at least that consideration - Christ, I wonder now whether anyone even looked at him funny. Again, nothing for Rather – the whole enchilada for Mapes and the crew -

[dropzone]

@manhattan

If he were retiring entirely I’d agree with you. That he’s not is essentially an admission by CBS that the on-air talent are not real journalists, just pretty talking heads who read what the producers put in front of them.

Exactly. While Rather would rather you think of him as a hard-bitten, old-time journalist “up to his big ears in the Bush National Guard story,” rolling up his sleeves and typing his own copy on an old Royal portable typewriter he is really no more than Ted Baxter, reading the stories and asking the questions written and researched by his people. Maybe he said, “Mary (Mapes or Richards, take your choice), get as much dirt on Bush’s time in the Guard as you can,” but he undoubtedly did none of the research and is just a figurehead.

I have, for many years, been amused that conservatives take his ravings so much more seriously than do liberals. I mean, GW Bush is better than Dan Rather when he strays from the script. At least Bush isn’t crazy.

[Tigers2B1]

Well it’s nice to see ya’ll taking up for the old, benighted, liberal warhorse. Especially nice to see that it’s not only ‘elephants’ that circle to protect the old and dying. Hell – maybe Rather is just a 74 year old “pretty” boy - as manhattan originally suggested. But if I could take a moment to be so bold — I really think you’re wrong here. You’ve focused too much on the ‘Rather’s big ears’ fragment from my post and nothing on the reference to the Panel’s report that Rather was, in fact, involved. Again, Rather was involved in this story – directly – in 1999. He was involved – again - in 2004 – per the Panel’s report.