CBS made a few questionable statements about a particular piece of evidence used on a news story about George Bush's military service record. George Bush's military service record is still largely a mystery with no witnesses available to recall their meetings with the future President during long stretches of his time in the military. So the questionable military record remains questionable, but a couple particular bits offered as evidence also proved to be questionable.
But now CBS has ousted 4 people for their roles in this possibly wrongful statement made on TV (I don't believe it is a crime in this country to make false statements on TV, nobody died, nobody even lost an election from these statements):
"Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush's National Guard service.
The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a 'rigid and blind' defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report." From CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story
So CBS decided that for the integrity and good word of their network to survive, 4 people had to be ousted.
Let us contrast this with George Bush's values oriented administration. The President and Vice-President make many repeated statements about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. These statement turn out to be completely false, no such weapons existed. Largely due to these false statements, a war was launched by the United States, 1300 plus and counting American soldiers died, forces were diverted from the search for terrorists - helping Osama bin Laden to remain free...
What is the Bush administratin reaction? One man (George Tenet, director of CIA) was ousted and he was lauded by George Bush while it happened, no connection to the false information was ever given as an official reason for his resignation. Otherwise George Bush's CEO style leadership consisted of denial, bluster, obstruction of investigations into the issue, protection and even promotion of the personnel involved in getting these false statements out to the public.
Wow, the Liberal Media appears to have a LOT more integrity than the current President. Somehow it doesn't come as a surprise to me, but I wonder if many people will even notice the proof.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I think you missed the point. If I ran a news service and I had a group of employees who had failed to do even a minimum amount of verification on blatantly fraudulent documents about the sitting President of the US and they let a story based on those forged documents go to press I'd fire them too in a heartbeat. Any sensible news department would. How can you preserve any aura of legitimacy if you let that sort of thing go on unchecked?
Dave
2 - Steve S
I got your point, BTP.
CBS news fires people for apparent deception.
The Bush Administration lauds people for it.
3 - Marc
But wait BTP there was a chance to "fire" the object of your hate.
To which Mapes responded: ""that looks good, hypothetically speaking, of course."But alas that was doomed to abysmal failure from its inception, despite C BS's best efforts to "change the momentum of an election," to quote a fired producer as written in an email to Mary Mapes.
Let's assume for a moment that your assertion the "Liberal Media has 400 percent more integrity than George Bush's Administration," is correct.
How does that change the fact a "news organization" took the word of an extremely bias producer (Mapes) who carried a 5 year vendetta to get Bush on this subject, used as a source a known political hack and Bush hater (Burkett), offered defacto bribes to get Burkette to handover the memos. (via email)
Please it all smacks of political activism not journalism.
But like "Steve S" I also got your point. That being you could care less than a fat rat about CBS, or journalism. Your point was to use this story as a vehicle to let loose another Bush bashing piece.
Mission accoplished, even if it is 99% BS.
4 - Shark
1) the document was a fake; fakes fool 'experts' every friggin' day; even the FBI and the American Numismatic Association have been fooled in some recent high-profile cases.
2) Cheney. Niger. Yellow cake. Care to discuss? Where are those apologies? Who got fired for that?
(Oh, wait, someone did pay for that! The Bushies took down one of their own CIA agents over that one. Nevermind.)
3) The substance of the CBS story still stands: Bush was apparently AWOL from duty -- and there IS NO DOUBT he served in the "champagne unit" during a bloody, violent conflict in Vietnam. ie. He's still a hypocritical chickenshit.
um...Marc, you were saying...
5 - DJRadiohead
A person or entity's integrity is not measured by the consequences that follow an action or decision. Integrity is measured by the choices, words, and actions of a person or entity. One can argue the consequences of a president lying are more severe than when the press lies, but that does not make it more ethical for the press to lie than it does for the president to lie.
In this case (if one accepts the premise that both the Bush administration and CBS are liars) both entities are lacking in the integrity department and neither side should be gloating.
6 - Dave Nalle
>>1) the document was a fake; fakes fool 'experts' every friggin' day; even the FBI and the American Numismatic Association have been fooled in some recent high-profile cases.<<
Yes, but of the experts they consulted all but one told them the documents were fakes and they ignored them.
>>2) Cheney. Niger. Yellow cake. Care to discuss? Where are those apologies? Who got fired for that?<<
Why sure, I'd be glad to discuss it since you seem to be unaware of the facts. In actuality the British stand by the source for that story, have evidence for it AND yellowcake was found in Iraq. But that hasn't gotten much news coverage, now has it?
>>3) The substance of the CBS story still stands: Bush was apparently AWOL from duty -- and there IS NO DOUBT he served in the "champagne unit" during a bloody, violent conflict in Vietnam. ie. He's still a hypocritical chickenshit.<<
One would think that liberals who were so against the Vietnam war would have a little sympathy for someone who didn't want to serve there. At least he didn't run off to England or something to avoid the draft.
Dave
7 - Aaman
Conscientious objectors are different from shirkers - I hold no brief here, but I've wanted to make this point for a while
8 - Dave Nalle
No one likes to get shot at. How you choose to avoid it seems trivial to me. Bush chose to work the system as many others did. I can't find anything to blame in that given the situation.
Dave
9 - JR
One would think that liberals who were so against the Vietnam war would have a little sympathy for someone who didn't want to serve there.
I have plenty of sympathy, until that same person turns around and starts sending other people off to die in another ill-conceived quagmire.
10 - Marc
"Conscientious objectors are different from shirkers - I hold no brief here, but I've wanted to make this point for a while."
But what is your point, that Bush was a shirker?
Shirkers would be those that fled to Canada or elsewhere. As are those that have done so in the last few months (cases that are even more absurd, they enlisted and now claim conscientious objector status). Both Bush and Kerry served their country.
But don't let your misinterpretation of the word shirker stand in the way of bashing someone.
11 - Eric Olsen
Bush, like a very high percentage of those who could, fudged, which is not the same thing as shirked. One who neither fudged nor shirked was Kerry, although he certainly could have, and for that he gets credit and respect. That is not a terribly relevant basis for a presidential campaign 30 years later, however.
12 - Big Time Patriot
I never said it was WRONG that CBS got rid of those four people. I indicated what they did wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I meant that to contrast with getting facts wrong and people dying over it, not to defend it or say they shouldn't have been gotten rid of. That may not have been clear in my writing as I look over it.
I don't mind they got fired, I think lying to the American public is wrong. I mind highly that only one person lost their job over the lives of 1300 plus Amercian soldiers. ONE PERSON. I don't care if Bush got re-elected, that doesn't make it right. If people keep watching CBS does that make their errors (and subsequent cover up attempts) okay? Of course not.
If Bush got misled by his underlings, those underlings should be fired. If Bush DIDN'T get misled and just lied to us to drag America into war, he is a traitor to our country. A leader is someone who will hold others responsible as well as themselves. George Bush holds NO ONE RESPONSIBLE for much of anything. Oh wait, he does have an exception, where he tends to get rid of anyone who tries to tell him the truth.
13 - MCH
Re comment #11: "Bush, like a very high percentage of those who could, fudged, which is not the same thing as shirked...That is not a terribly relevant basis for a presidential campaign 30 years later, however."
There are at least two high-ranking officials, who've actually served in the miltary, who disagree.
General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, who commanded the U.S. Air Force during Desert Storm, said, "Until we know the truth about President Bush's military service - how he got into the Guards, how and why he neglected his duty, how and why he was not disciplined - this issue will hang around and smell up the place."
"The president dishonored the Guards decades ago, and he dishonors them today, by the way he misuses and mistreats them," said Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (retired) and former CIA director. "George Bush owes them the truth about his own service and needs to answer questions about his commitment to our Armed Forces."
A former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McPeak, a four-star general who retired in 1994 after 35 years in the Air Force, served three tours as a Thunderbird fighter pilot in Vietnam from 1968-70, amassing 269 combat missions. Turner was a Rhodes Scholar, a four-star Admiral and Commander in Chief of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean during the Cold War.
It was after G.W. Bush was transferred to Dannelly Air Force Base in May, 1972, that he disappeared from service. During the 2000 campaign, when asked about his duties at Dannelly, G.W. responded, "I didn't do any flying there because they didn't have the same kind of planes;" however, the fact is he had been permanently grounded from flying in August of 1971 for missing a mandatory physical exam.
Just prior to the latest election, the group "Texans for Truth" offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who had witnessed G.W. serving during his required 6-month obligation (May 1972-November 1972) at Dannelly. No one collected. According to the UCMJ, absence without leave for more than 30 days constitutes desertion.
The acts of lying and desertion is a little more serious than "fudging," in my view, and are indeed a terribly relevant basis in a presidential campaign 30 years later.
14 - Eric Olsen
there are many who share that opinion
15 - DJRadiohead
I still have seen no reports with enough credible evidence to vindicate or 'indict' (not meant in the criminal sense, more the rhetorical) the President. Neither 'side' in this instance can actually prove a thing.
The only thing we do know is CBS aired a story it cannot prove, and used questionable tactics to get it.
16 - spiderleaf
true, but if you recall, the secretary who stated the documents were not originals as she didn't type them/ sign them stated the facts contained within them were consistent with what she recalled.
17 - Big Time Patriot
"The only thing we do know is CBS aired a story it cannot prove, and used questionable tactics to get it."
We know another thing, the administration made false statements about Weapons of Mass Destruction that helped start a war and led to the deaths of 1300 soldiers. Only ONE person had to quit, and the error about WMDs wasn't even mentioned by the President as a reason for his leaving.
4 people lose their jobs over a false statement on TV. 1 person loses their job over an entire WAR for godsakes. If George Bush knew what shame (and with that humility) was, perhaps he wouldn't keep getting himself (and America) into a deeper and deeper mess in Iraq.
18 - DJRadiohead
CBS did not fire the 4 people it fired until after an investigation was performed to determine how things went off track. I believe there is still an investigation going underway to determine why US intel was less than good. Maybe it is not unreasonable to wait to fire people until there is a better understanding of how things went off track.
Firing people does not fix the mistakes of the past, nor does it ensure they will not be repeated. Firing people is a PR move. It looks serious. But if real changes are not enacted, the faces will change but the behaviors will not.
19 - Big Time Patriot
"I believe there is still an investigation going underway to determine why US intel was less than good. Maybe it is not unreasonable to wait to fire people until there is a better understanding of how things went off track."
Hmmm it took CBS only a few months to start and end their investigation. As I said, the Bush administration's role in delaying (and minimizing the scope) of these investigations is proof that they value the safety of the administration over getting to the truth of starting a war on false pretenses.
"Starting a war on false pretenses"... That's gonna look good in George Bush's history citations won't it?
20 - DJRadiohead
I will concede I would like to see the speed of the investigation kicked up a tick or two... but we are talking about investigating a massive agency (and to a certain extent evaluating the intel agencies of those who provided us with information- the CIA was not the only agency who wound up with egg on their face).
"Starting a war on false pretenses"... That's gonna look good in George Bush's history citations won't it?
We'll never know how much better or worse that will look than what history would say if Saddam were left in power. Maybe 'containment' (not my word of choice, but it is how the strategy is oft-described) would have worked indefinitely. Maybe it would not have. Starting a war under false pretenses is bad... it might not be the worst scenario. We'll never know.