Hieronymus Blogsch http://www.rjray.org rjray.org - Journal and Log for Randy J. Ray en Randy J. Ray (rjray@blackperl.com) Copyright Randy J. Ray Salon on the Cowardly Broadcasting System http://www.rjray.org/politics/cbs.html Reading this will require either an existing subscription to Salon.com, or willingness to watch an ad for a one-day pass. But for this story, I felt it was worth it to spread the word:

Sept. 29, 2004 | By relying on documents that could not be absolutely authenticated from a blind source to make the otherwise irrefutable case that George W. Bush shirked his National Guard duties in the early 1970s, CBS anchor Dan Rather dealt the credibility of journalism a "body blow," according to Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler. But just how damaging was that blow?

One measure of the debacle is a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment that millions of viewers now will not see: a hard-hitting report making a powerful case that in trying to build support for the Iraq war, the Bush administration either knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities or was grossly credulous. CBS News president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign.

The importance that CBS placed on the report was evident by its unusual length: It was slated to run a full half hour, double the usual 15 minutes of a single segment. Although months of reporting went into the production, CBS abruptly decided that it would be "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," in the words of a statement that network spokeswoman Kelli Edwards gave the New York Times.

Sorry, but in my opinion the gross inaccuracy of the reasons for invading Iraq is especially appropriate before the election. And if Rather is the target of scorn for reporting documents that may have been forged, why isn't Bush? Rather reports on possibly-invalid documents, people want him fired. Bush reports on proven-invalid documents, those same people want to see him given another term.

]]> /politics Randy J. Ray 2004-09-30T00:23-07:00 Reading this will require either an existing subscription to Salon.com, or willingness to watch an ad for a one-day pass. But for this story, I felt it was worth it to spread the word:

Sept. 29, 2004 | By relying on documents that could not be absolutely authenticated from a blind source to make the otherwise irrefutable case that George W. Bush shirked his National Guard duties in the early 1970s, CBS anchor Dan Rather dealt the credibility of journalism a "body blow," according to Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler. But just how damaging was that blow?

One measure of the debacle is a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment that millions of viewers now will not see: a hard-hitting report making a powerful case that in trying to build support for the Iraq war, the Bush administration either knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities or was grossly credulous. CBS News president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign.

The importance that CBS placed on the report was evident by its unusual length: It was slated to run a full half hour, double the usual 15 minutes of a single segment. Although months of reporting went into the production, CBS abruptly decided that it would be "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," in the words of a statement that network spokeswoman Kelli Edwards gave the New York Times.

Sorry, but in my opinion the gross inaccuracy of the reasons for invading Iraq is especially appropriate before the election. And if Rather is the target of scorn for reporting documents that may have been forged, why isn't Bush? Rather reports on possibly-invalid documents, people want him fired. Bush reports on proven-invalid documents, those same people want to see him given another term.

]]>