# Was the CBS investigation report quashed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258 "2004-10-26T16:46:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![charizard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charizard/32/4166_2.png) [@charizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/charizard)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/1 "2004-10-26T16:46:22Z")
Has anyone seen so much as a peep from the investigative panel looking into the CBS forged-document scandal? CBS had \*almost \* started to redeem themselves in my eyes by appearing to appoint a serious team to look into the matter. But then they ruined it when one of the top executives said that he didn’t want the results to come out before November 2nd - so as not to “influence the election”. Oh sure! It’s OK for CBS to air a story clearly designed to influence the election! But if it turns out to be faked, it’s \*not \* OK for the facts to come out because it might influence the election! More importantly, though, CBS’s statement is a red flag, a direct admission that there’s going to be more to the final report than what we know now. We’re not just going to hear about a spiteful Bill Burkett and an over-zealous CBS news staff - we’re going to hear something that would “influence the election” if told today. But, even after all the shenanegans that CBS has pulled so far (and their non-apologies for it), they’re still willing to straight say that they just don’t want to tell us about it. Have they no shame :mad: ? Please, though, don’t turn this in to yet another Bush-Kerry thing. I don’t particularly care whether CBS is covering up for people at the DNC or for Karl Rove. The question here is 1) when will the report be out, and 2) who does CBS think they are, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/2 "2004-10-26T18:05:26Z")
> [@charizard](#): > > The question here is 1) when will the report be out, and 2) who does CBS think they are, anyway? 1. After the election, when CBS can say either, “Look, Bush won anyway, so it’s no big deal”, or “Look, Kerry won anyway, so it’s no big deal”. 2. They think they are in charge of telling those dumb voters what to think, and if they have to cut a few ethical corners to get the job done, fire a few junior staffers if you get caught and stonewall. People lose interest, and back to business as usual. The media elite has two sets of standards. One is for them, and one for everybody else. Abiding by their standards is mandatory for everybody else. Deciding whether to abide by their own standards for themselves is optional. It’s not like we have learned anything rational people haven’t known for years. Most of the major media is DNC lite. Once in a while they get too arrogant for their own good, and make it impossible even for the most dedicated duck-speakers to defend them. Then they have to circle the wagons until some milestone is passed. Then back to business as usual. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/3 "2004-10-26T19:30:41Z")
> [@charizard](#): > > …one of the top executives said that he didn’t want the results to come out before November 2nd - so as not to “influence the election”. > > Oh sure! It’s OK for CBS to air a story clearly designed to influence the election! But if it turns out to be faked, it’s \*not \* OK for the facts to come out because it might influence the election!.. CBS didn’t want to influence the election! That’s a load. And CBS appears to be still at it –— Note the statement attributed to Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, about airing CERTAIN breaking “news” for just before election day — _“our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn’t hold”_ Be sure to remain bent over for this one — A little more about CBS’ most recent efforts – > [@](#): > > \*\*60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE > > News of missing explosives in Iraq – first reported in April 2003 – was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode. > > Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that “our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn’t hold…” > > Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003]. > > The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as “exclusive.” > > An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq. > > According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP] …\*\* [http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm](http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/4 "2004-10-27T05:05:51Z")
You’re citing the Drudge Report? Why not just make up the news, it’ll save time? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/5 "2004-10-27T05:09:26Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > You’re citing the Drudge Report? Why not just make up the news, it’ll save time? The same story was reported on CNN today. Is that acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/6 "2004-10-27T05:17:26Z")
NBC News has pretty much pulled the plug on the whole “our crew was with the troops when they got there, and the stuff was already gone” story. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2004\_10\_24.php#003805](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003805). Drudge and CNN jumped all over the story, a bit prematurely, it would appear. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/7 "2004-10-27T06:18:13Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > You’re citing the Drudge Report? Why not just make up the news, it’ll save time? **Chief He-That-Cites-Blogs** , your concern is rather ironic. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/8 "2004-10-27T19:57:44Z")
I see **Brutus** can’t distinguish between citing a blog that cites _legitimate news sources_ and citing a blog that pulls claims out of Matt Drudge’s unsubstantiated ass. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/9 "2004-10-27T20:24:40Z")
The point being made is that while CBS professes a concern with 'influencing the election," they seem to be selective. When it comes to the decision to delay the investigation into the use of forged military documents, a story I assume CBS thinks might “influence” the election in Bush’s favor, they delay. While announcing this they were “holding” a story about “missing” weapons, which they planned to ‘air’ just two days before the election. This is undisputed. Now the question becomes — why all of this artificial timing of the news? Why should CBS even be concerned with “influencing the election” IF there are honest news reporters – honest reporters who are reporting news AS it becomes available for airing? Is CBS timing news around the election? Considering CBS’ growing reputation as a biased news organization, I hope not. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/10 "2004-10-27T21:48:54Z")
A tu quoque. Where’s that CIA 9/11 report? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/11 "2004-10-28T12:12:15Z")
Actually, more of a _non sequiteur_. Since the one has nothing to do with the other. That’s the best you can do, eh? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/12 "2004-10-28T17:11:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually, more of a _non sequiteur_. Since the one has nothing to do with the other. > > That’s the best you can do, eh? I’m going to stick with a TQ. One side is blocking a report. The other side is blocking a report. Frankly, I’d like to see both. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/13 "2004-10-28T17:21:32Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > I’m going to stick with a TQ… Why not just spell out what you’re talking about and, afterwards, show how that’s relevant to this topic —? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/14 "2004-10-28T17:23:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually, more of a _non sequiteur_. Since the one has nothing to do with the other. Is that a French _non sequitur_? Why do you hate Latin so much? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/15 "2004-10-28T17:47:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Is that a French _non sequitur_? Why do you hate Latin so much? 🙂 I don’t hate it. I’m hoping to visit Latin America, so I can use it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![charizard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charizard/32/4166_2.png) [@charizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/charizard)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/16 "2004-10-28T17:50:18Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > I’m going to stick with a TQ. One side is blocking a report. The other side is blocking a report. > > Frankly, I’d like to see both. So, have we abandoned all pretense that CBS news is actually a journalistic entity? We’ve just accepted that they are agents of the Democratic “side”, responsible for withholding information on their fraudulent reporting until the Republican “side” coughs up some concession? Then they should lose their news credentials and register as a an arm of the DNC. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/17 "2004-10-28T18:22:44Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Why not just spell out what you’re talking about and, afterwards, show how that’s relevant to this topic —? Tu Quoque. A logical fallacy. > [@m-w.com](#): > > Pronunciation: 'tü-'kwO-kwE, 'tyü-, -'kO- > Function: noun > Etymology: Latin, you too > : a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others > [@charizard](#): > > So, have we abandoned all pretense that CBS news is actually a journalistic entity? > > We’ve just accepted that they are agents of the Democratic “side”, responsible for withholding information on their fraudulent reporting until the Republican “side” coughs up some concession? > > Then they should lose their news credentials and register as a an arm of the DNC. Well, I said from the get go that it was a tu quoque, what more do you want? We have two entities. Both in theory non partisan. One has been shown to be withholding a potentially damning report until after the election. One is suspected of doing the same. Your outrage over ABC sounds pretty partisan if when you exhibit none of the same on the actions of the CIA. See? This is the kind of trouble one gets into when one brings a logical fallacy into GD. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/18 "2004-10-28T18:50:13Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Tu Quoque. A logical fallacy. > > Originally Posted by [m-w.com](http://m-w.com) > Pronunciation: 'tü-'kwO-kwE, 'tyü-, -'kO- > Function: noun > Etymology: Latin, you too > : a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others. Well – that would be an answer to the question - _What is Tu Quoque?_ — but, sadly, I didn’t ask you want it was – I asked you to provide substance for your assertion and explain how that’s connected with the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/19 "2004-10-28T19:10:26Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > …Well, I said from the get go that it was a tu quoque, what more do you want? We have two entities. Both in theory non partisan. One has been shown to be withholding a potentially damning report until after the election. One is suspected of doing the same. Your outrage over ABC sounds pretty partisan if when you exhibit none of the same on the actions of the CIA. > > See? This is the kind of trouble one gets into when one brings a logical fallacy into GD. And why is the heck is this a “logical fallacy” — first, this thread is about CBS (not ABC) and it’s about CBS’ statement that it doesn’t want to _“influence the election.”_ Last - I doubt this _tu quoque_ thing you’ve introduced fits – but if it does — by all means ‘fan it out’ so we can see it - lets make sure there aren’t 1s under those 100s — ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258/20 "2004-10-28T19:18:51Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Why not just spell out what you’re talking about Nuance of the language does not transfer well to the written word. I took from that statement that you wanted me to literally _spell out_ what a TQ was. > [@](#): > > asked you to provide substance for your assertion [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,654534,print.column?coll=la-util-op-ed](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,654534,print.column?coll=la-util-op-ed). > [@](#): > > and explain how that’s connected with the issue. It isn’t! It’s a Tu quoque! A Logical Fallacy! A fallacious argument! Did I mention that before? It’s an amazingly common tool on these boards, and it is recognized as the fallacy that it is. But it also has a role of pointing out disingenuous outrage. It was in _that_ capacity in which it was introduced. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-cbs-investigation-report-quashed/271258.md?page=2)