What’s Wrong with CBS?– Noonan just nicks the bulls-eye
Okay, Peggy Noonan gets a couple of rounds solid black in her Wall St Journal essay deliciously titled “That’s the way it was.” She wants CBS to fire the bright young blonde newsreaders and hire back the “untelegenic” but talented news hounds CBS fired in the late 80s. Instead of taking its cue from the NY Times (which is what CBS does), she suggests a “distributed” reporting pool that feeds news up (an Internet model?).
A Noonan bullet in the black:
If you (CBS) allowed your fine and grizzled correspondents to find the answers and tell us, you would get a fresh and refreshing broadcast. But this does involve putting down your copy of the New York Times.
I worked at CBS 20 years ago and what was true of us then is true now, and true of every other network newsroom: They key evening news coverage off the front page of the New York Times. In Ken Auletta’s piece in The New Yorker this week on Dan Rather’s goodbye he has Mr. Rather in a “Front Page” mode, briskly asking his executive producer what the lead will be that night. Iraq, he answers, and part of the package keys off today’s Times report.
But what CBS really needs to do –and this applies to any serious, competent investigative news organization– is
(1) Find Lucy Ramirez (the unicorn in the Dan Rather fraud documents scandal). If they can’t find Lucy R., then the revived CBS can tell us who fabricated her. You find Lucy Ramirez Frankenstein’s creator and it’s a good bet you’ll discover who produced the fraudulent National Guard documents.
(2) Obtain the release of Eason Jordan’s Davos rant where –according to a US Senator and a US member of Congress– there is solid evidence that Jordan slandered the US military. This would have been the second time Jordan alleged that the US military “targeted” journalists. As I wrote last month, The Eason Jordan Affair isn’t over ’til the tape rolls. A revived CBS can roll that tape.
(3) Update us on the careers of the reporters and producers who gave us CNN’s phony “Tail Wind” story. Remember? CNN alleged that US forces dropped nerve gas in southeast Asia. (Here’s a link to a MACVSOG vet site addressing Tail Wind.) Correspondent Peter Arnett got fired, but fired though she was, Operation Tail Wind field producer April Oliver did not go quietly into the good night. Oliver told us Tail Wind was true and that she would continue to work on it. Various new sites report Mary Mapes is peddling a book that maintains the CBS National Guard documents are genuine. Mapes and Oliver sound like a good “book end” story– then and now.
A revived, serious CBS would tackle these stories and do so without hype. “Pressure on the press” in the pursuit of truth might do wonders for CBS ratings.
UPDATE: Read Jeff Jarvis’ “final chapter” with the NY Times’ Bill Keller. Keller simply doesn’t get it. He thinks stories on the Internet “never end.” What’s the reason the Dan Rather and Eason Jordan stories haven’t gone away? Big investigative media never finished the story. The Davos tape remains under lock and key and Jordan tells us he was “misunderstood.” Mary Mapes is out hawking a book deal– and Lucy Ramirez is still somewhere in Texas. Bill Keller is in a position to find Lucy Ramirez — or expose her as a fiction.
UPDATE 2: Mr. Kurtz comes up short again. Howard Kurtz, Washington Post media critic still insists the Eason Jordan merely made “…some ill-considered comments about the U.S. military targeting journalists.” Many of us believe Jordan committed slander, and what evidence we have suggests he committed this slander on two occasions. Jordan produced no evidence that the US military has targeted journalists– but we have evidence of his statement.
As a journalist, Howard Kurtz should call for release of the Davos tape, then we can all see if Jordan made some “ill considered comments” or committed slander. If my conclusion that he committed slander against the military is proved wrong, I’ll retract it and apologize. But– as I’ve pointed out– I was serving in Iraq during the time period Jordan’s “targeting” would have occurred. This isn’t merely the political ballgame Kurtz seems to think it ise. For those of us in uniform it’s an issue of truth and an issue of consequences.
Read Kurtz’ entire column, which deals with the Bush Administration and the media. Kurtz gets into some of the legacy media’s self-inflicted wounds and with the exception of soft-pedaling Eason Jordan does a fair job within the tight frame of a column surveying Bush Administration attitudes and media woes.
Just those 3 little bitty stories? Sounds like you plan to short CBS.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — 3/3/2005 @ 8:27 am
And if we are going to have CBS start investigation real stories, why don’t they look into the anthrax mailings from a few years ago (we still haven’t found out who is responsible)? Or why don’t we have CBS look into why there aren’t any surveillance tapes of the 19 hijackers from 9/11? Or we could ask CBS to investigate and report on the administrations use of paid shills to get their message across? Just because we disagree with a story doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. [ALLEGATION DELETED]… US troops did shell Al Jazeerah (sp?) and the Palestinian Hotel where foreign journalists were staying. [NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: This blog allows opinion. It does not allow unsubstantiated allegations such as this one made by Commenter 2 (and has been deleted). There can be a fine line, but this particular comment crossed that line. No evidence has ever been presented that US military forces in Iraq purposefully targeted journalists– as in a direct command to specifically kill journalists. That is what witnesses at Davos say Eason Jordan meant. This is why the tape needs to be released– it could possibly restore Jordan’s reputation. But thank you for the rest of the comment.]
Comment by Wil The Coyote — 3/3/2005 @ 11:09 am
Sigh. I suppose it is pointless to point out that Iraq targeting, hotel shelling, anthrax mailings and all the rest of the litany have indeed been done to death, but a person so uninformed is determined to stay uninformed out of personal need, so I won’t try. The “Who Is Lucy Ramirez?” angle is key to the Rathergate story and still the most compelling aspect. “Lucy Ramirez” is where the trail went cold and where is stays cold. If she exists, find her. If she doesn’t exist, find out why she was invented. It is often the case that the “Lucy Ramirez’s” show up in a tale when you need something, anything, to bring the pursuit to a screeching halt at a locked door. So far it is working well in this case. Unlike “Lucy Ramirez” we actually know that a Davos Tape exists. What we seem to have trouble accepting in the truth that we will never, ever see it. The sensible conclusion is that we won’t see it because is does not exonerate but damn. But since we won’t see it, we are only speculating. Tailhook is another story that will not be pursued because it will not exonerate but damn. Having had a distant and shameful hand in the Nerve Gas myth I know it to be false but I’ve never be contacted about it by other than those who want to advance it and they had no interest in taking my admission that I was gulled and flimflammed about the orginal accusations from decades back. Again, if it doesn’t exonerate, it dies. That’s the method. The infallibility of the High Church of the Media.
Comment by Vanderleun — 3/3/2005 @ 12:28 pm
Hmmm. An interesting concept I discussed with a friend of mine is CBS dividing into two camps. CBS/Red and CBS/Blue. Each would support a separate staff and get 1/2 hour. Each could report new stories or refute stories put out by the other. Head to head competition, but within the same news network. *shrug* I think it would be interesting enough to watch.
Comment by ed — 3/3/2005 @ 12:49 pm
Kurtz’s audience determines how he refers to E. Jordan’s “ill considered comments,” etc. The audience is bigger than Austin Bay’s and less in the know. He will lose the audience if he’s too direct, assuming he wants to say more than he said, and that’s an open question, in my book. But writing for an audience by its nature calls for tailoring what you say. All things considered, if you pardon the NPR phrase, Kurtz said a good deal, for which he should be commended, as should Austin Bay for his work, it goes without saying.
Comment by Jim Bowman — 3/3/2005 @ 1:11 pm
I’d be pissed… Thats one of the things that has always bugged me about CBS’s reaction to the National Guard story. If I were rather I’d be pissed. Pissed at Mary, pissed at management, pissed at Bill Burkett, pissed at originator of the forgery, pissed that I was made to look like a fool. (Ed: Even if you deserved it?) And the outlet of that anger would be directed at the originator of the fraud. I’d have 60 Minutes II (Ed: its 60 Minutes Wednesday now… Oops) do one of those things that made 60 Minutes famous. The “drop-in” interview. I’d have camped out at Bill Burkett’s house. He certainly doesn’t seem like a whiz at the media game. I’m sure he’d crack in pretty short order. Then move on to the Kerry Campaign: “What did you know and when did you know it?” Of course they can’t do as Austin Bay suggests, because it would likely stop with Burkett, and CBS would demonstrate to the world what the blogosphere already knows. They are just partisan political teleprompters. ARC: Brian
Comment by ARC: Brian — 3/3/2005 @ 1:28 pm
T ed: Good concept. That’s why Fox is so successful.
Comment by opine6 — 3/3/2005 @ 1:34 pm
Incisive post, Colonel.
Comment by mark safranski — 3/3/2005 @ 2:22 pm
All of these are excellent suggestions as far as regards coverage of domestic news, although I’m somewhat dubious about the skills that present-day TV journalists bring to what amounts to detective work. My biggest beef is that the American public doesn’t seem to get much in-depth news from abroad. Whenever a war (Iraq) or natural disaster (tsunami) occurs, what happens? They lever Dan or Peter or whoever out of the anchorman’s chair and whisk him/her off abroad for some compelling location shots, etc. Together with a bunch of self-regarding grandstanders like (to pick the worst example) Geraldo Rivera. What about the day-to-day inside story from foreign parts? Where are the great American foreign correspondents? We used to have William L. Shirer, Edward R. Murrow, Harry Reasoner, etc., etc. The great American newspapers took pride in their stable of foreign correspondents, from the NYT to the Chicago Tribune to even much smaller papers in Kansas City or San Diego. Now we get zilch unless its off the AP or Reuters wire. Well, sorry, if I want to read nothing but AP copy, I’ll have a teleprinter installed in my home. American journalists and the executives calling the shots need to get off their duffs and do the real, grinding, persistent digging and reporting necessary to cover not just the US, but the whole world.
Comment by James Jennings — 3/3/2005 @ 2:23 pm
Howzabout someone at C-BS digging into docs-in-the-socs Berger? Oh, that’s right - any story that’s not damaging to the Bush Admin is a non-story over at Black Rot.
Comment by David Fennimore — 3/3/2005 @ 4:54 pm
Anyone up for a reprise of Vince Foster and the DC Park Police? Or perhaps Ron Brown, of the “small round hole” behind the head that passed as a hairline fracture? Anyone who thinks our so-called News Groups are good for more than “have a nice day” (if you’re a Democrat) is due for long, dull evenings in the local shelter.
Comment by John Blake — 3/3/2005 @ 6:54 pm
Hmmm. “Good concept. That’s why Fox is so successful.” But Fox relies on being “fair and balanced” while my concept is anything but. Instead of having two commentators duking it out on the same show, there would effectively be two separate shows. One show would showcase stories that reflect the biases of the Blue states. The other show would reflect the biases of the Red states. No compromising, no apologies and the last man standing wins. Then you incorporate blogs to allow people to comment, argue with each other and get involved. *shrug* in effect nothing more really than an active blog with a TV show attached to drive people berserk. I’d watch it. I’m odd that way.
Comment by ed — 3/3/2005 @ 11:26 pm
“was Kerry in Cambodia at Christmas or did he LIE, LIE in his 1986 Senate Testimony; did he sign Form 180 or did he LIE when he said he “released his records”;” Did he lie about his SF 180? No, I don’t think so (in spite of the fact so many pages are missing - personally, I think he’s hiding a medical discharge, for psychiatric reasons) Did he lie about Cambodia? Again, no, I don’t think so. We’re talking about a guy who brags about “running guns to the Khmer Rouge”. He’s not lying - he’s insane.
Comment by Jay — 3/4/2005 @ 4:40 pm
Jay, You make a good point. When Kerry’s Cambodia fantasy collapsed after he had said that the memory was “seared, seared” into his brain, I concluded that what was seared into his brain was his own hallucinations. One reason for voting against him (I had many others) was the fact that I did not want someone who could not tell the difference between reality and his own hallucinations having his finger on the nuclear button.
Comment by Michael Lonie — 3/6/2005 @ 1:05 am
More evidence that no one respects CBS anymore here: Nic, Bupkis, Nichevo
Comment by Katie Krew — 3/7/2005 @ 2:06 pm
338872ec3 b92376e84ee7b39dbb3ecf797c914f44 fa7e0b05711a727.
Trackback by 338872ec3 — 3/16/2005 @ 11:46 am
5207702a249cd74c121969e91299fb10 61d60ff740a401860.
Comment by 338872ec3 — 3/16/2005 @ 11:46 am