The independent panel found that there was no intent to influence the election - just a desire to be first with the story. Because of the care they’ve taken with their fact-finding, I accept this as true.
And even assuming you’re right – despite the efforts of CBS, Bush won. The consequences COULD have been disastrous, but they were not. He won. So the actual consequences turned out to be trivial.
Do you have any evidence for that charge? Can you demonstrate that Mapes and/or Rather aired the story with the intent to influence the election?
That’s getting to the meat of the matter.
I don’t know. Someone in the chain, or multiple someones, whose job it was to analyze data and weigh its credibility, either screwed up or they didn’t. I don’t know who, and I don’t know if they did. If someone can point to facts and say, “Based on this: X, Y, and Z, I concluded there were WMDs present. Looking back, I now see A, B, and C indicating that this conclusion was wrong – but it was still reasonable at the time to make,” then I’d say no one’s to blame. But if a reasonable observer looking at the raw data were to say, “Look, there’s no possible reasonable interpretation that leads to WMDs here – whoever said that, based on this data, is crazy!” THEN I’d want firings.
I haven’t heard anything approaching that level of analysis, though. I don’t know if it’s been done or not, and what the results were.
But that’s what I’d be looking for. I want to know who, specifically, made recomendations, and what they were relying on, and whether that reliance was reasonable.
If you have sources I can peruse that offer some objective looks at that, I’d be very interested.
You are correct!
I should have said IMHO, as this is only my opinion; however, this opinion is based on decades of observation of CBS News, CBS as a network, and Rather in particular.
But be that as it may, I stand corrected. Thank you. 
No shame, for sure.
You are an attorney, correct? Therefore, you must know how difficult it is to prove intent. I think the panel just focused on things there was direct evidence of. It would be difficult for them to do otherwise. But lack of evidence does not equate to lack of intent, and my view of their intent is based, like I said in my post to gobear, on years of observation.
Again, to equate this to law, wouldn’t such a point of view negate crimes of conspiracy as long as events unfolded so as to frustrate the goal of the conspiracy?
The motives behind CBS’, Rather’s and Mapes’ actions, and the fact that they were trying to leverage their credibility as a (supposedly) unbiased news source to achieve their own ends (IMHO) is what I’m condemning them for.
Oh, now I’m convinced. Thanks.
Intent may be inferred from teh available evidence - but it wasn’t. To put it another way, the “jury” – the panel – looked at the evidence and declined to infer intent, even though they could. That’s good enough for me. If they had found intent, I agree there is sufficient evidence for them to go that way. But they were the ones that interviewed the people, looked at their faces as they were relating their stories, and are in the best possible position to judge the credibility of each person. I feel, in fairness, that I cannot substitute my judgement for theirs.
No, because the crime of conspiracy is complete the moment the agreement to commit the predicate crime is reached and a single overt act, even a legal one, is taken towards the furtherence of the predicate crime. If the predicate crime ultimately fizzles, the crime of conspiracy is still a done deal.
Well, I’ve laid out my reasons for condemning Mapes and giving Rather a pass. We may simply have to agree to disagree.
You’re mistaking your not being worth it with my inability to do so. But, since others are reading and may be just as mistaken as you, chew on this. Still more than a person of your level of good faith is worth, though.
When you’re done with that (and I hope you can do more than your typical weaseling “good faith, used bad information in that instance” approach that strenuously ignores patterns), try anything here. You can, at any point, acknowledge that your even-more-typical “They all do it too, they’re all just as bad as we are” method of “debate” just might require some reconsideration on your part.
Thanks for responding, and the legalese.
But I think if you took off your lawyer hat, you’d see what the jury saw, and you wouldn’t be happy about it. Can you really say Fox came out looking good here, to the teeming masses?
Anyway, there are other examples of Fox lies - I just thought the case was interesting from the standpoint of a news consumer. Maybe the FCC laws that oversee public interest is the better venue for this case. Of course, that’s assuming an impartial panel, and that’s probably assuming too much.
But as a fellow consumer of news, and a lawyer, do you see any legal remedy for the suppression of information due to corporate influence that the case illustrates? I don’t see this as a partisan issue. Do you?