MaxedOutMama
Thursday, February 17, 2005
She's Right
Regarding the story that Josh Howard is fighting the request for his resignation and demanding that Moonves retract his statements, La Shawn Barber wrote:
The only thing that Howard could have done to stop the segment would have been to audit Mapes' work himself. Was that possibility available to him? The preponderance of the evidence, given CBS News failure to do so after the segment had aired and criticisms were being levelled is that no, it was not. If the entire machinery of CBS News could not be focused to defend itself by reinvestigating Mapes' work, then it is obvious that Howard did not have the authority to do so before the segment had aired.
For 11 days - from the 9th, the day after the segment aired, to the 20th, on which Heyward announced the documents could not be authenticated and should not have been used, the entire weight of CBS News' authority was used exclusively to support the story. Heyward asked West on the 10th to investigate the document examiner's claims independently. It was not done. One would guess that Mapes was still stonewalling, and refused to give up control of the process. Numerous false statements were issued by the publicity arm without being vetted. It is blatantly clear that Moonves is holding Howard to a standard to which people above him in the chain of command could not and did not live up, and this for 11 long days, whereas Howard had 2 at most.
On page 62 of the report:
It is impossible for a fair observer, IMO, to read the report and conclude that Howard had the authority to contravene Rather and Mapes, when Heyward himself failed to do so for more than 10 days after the segment. The producers of The Evening News failed to check Rather's statements, later proven to be false, on that broadcast. If the culture of CBS News was such that Howard himself had the option to demand that Mapes' work be reevaluated by an independent authority (when it was not questioned by the two lawyers), then it must also be obvious that Heyward abdicated his responsibility after the segment had aired, and so did those responsible for producing The Evening News (unnamed), and so did those responsible for the false defenses put out by the public relations arm of CBS News (also unnamed).
Furthermore, the recommendations in the report clearly blame the star system at CBS News for the entire organization's failure to be fair and accurate in their reporting. The report also notes, with some alarm, that Rather himself still contends that the story was essentially accurate. In other words, a star at CBS News has no responsibility to form his or her own opinions on the basis of commonly defensible reasoning and fact. So the system itself has not changed, has it?
I’m behind Howard all the way on this, and I hope he’s aided by a blog swarm that forces CBS to either retract their statements about him or initiates another investigation into CBS. A real investigation this time.She's correct, and I think there should be a blog swarm on the issue. Howard shouldn't be held responsible for inaction the system at CBS News clearly didn't permit him to take. From the NY Observer story(sic):
But Mr. Howard�s complaint about Mr. Moonves� remarks could pose a serious problem for CBS. Sources close to Mr. Howard said he believes that the report�which was assembled by an outside team of former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press head Louis Boccardi Jr.�contradicts Mr. Moonves� statement about Mr. Howard�s share of the blame.From the same NY Observer story:
Mr. Howard also believes, those sources said, that the report itself excludes evidence that would implicate top management at CBS and restore Mr. Howard�s reputation in the television news business.
Mr. Howard, Mr. Moonves said, "did little to assert his role as the producer ultimately responsible for the broadcast and everything in it. This mistake dealt a tremendous blow to the credibility of 60 Minutes Wednesday and to CBS News in general."My impression is that both of Mr. Howard's beliefs must be true and that Mr. Moonves did blame Howard for failing to do something that the system and culture of CBS did not permit Howard to do. I saved down an early copy of the CBS report before it was republished in a pdf document which prohibits copying of text, so I have some excerpts from the report to support my reasoning. From page 24:
Heyward, however, asked West by no later than September 7 to become more deeply involved, which evidenced his recognition that this was an important and potentially controversial story. Thus, Heyward cautioned West and Howard in an e-mail on September 7 not to be “stampede[d]” and that “we’re going to have to defend every syllable of this one . . .”Okay, so Heyward apparently knew that there was a possiblity of stampeding. That seems to support the idea that Mapes was known to be a bit headstrong, doesn't it? Why would Heyward assign West unless he thought Howard might need an extra eye with extra authority? Now the report makes it quite clear that Mapes lied to the vetters, of whom Howard was only one. Two CBS lawyers were involved as well. From page 49:
The Panel was told that the lawyers do not always limit their involvement to a review of the legal issues. Given that they each have been with CBS for more than 20 years, their views on editorial content and other matters are valued. For example, with respect to the September 8 Segment, Sternberg and Altabef asked questions about the source of the documents and the authentication process and whether the Killian documents contained newsworthy information.The panel was also told that the vetters were operating under the belief that the documents had been authenticated by the experts CBS News hired. From page 27:
The recollections of the vetters concerning what they were told by Mapes about the document examiners were not always clear or consistent. Most of the vetters told the Panel that Mapes told them that there were four examiners, including the “Dean” of document examiners (Matley), who had authenticated all or some of the documents, without any reservation or qualification. In any event, none of the vetters believed that there were any outstanding concerns related to the authentication of the documents prior to the airing of the Segment.The report criticizes the vetters for not having a better knowledge of document authentication, but obviously they were lied to about authentication. The fact that two CBS News lawyers were involved and asked questions specifically about the authentication of the documents makes it unlikely indeed that Howard can be held responsible for a poor authentication process. So what responsibility did Howard abdicate? On page 28 the report states:
The Panel concludes that the September 8 Segment reflected a widespread breakdown of fundamental processes at 60 Minutes Wednesday. CBS News has an historic and deep-seated commitment to accurate and fair reporting, and the Panel was impressed by the fact that so many of its personnel have been with CBS News for many years and appear fully committed to the Standards of accuracy and fairness that CBS News has articulated.Mapes was a star and Rather was a star. After reading the report, it seems pretty apparent that Mapes was intent upon "stampeding" the unbelievably poor vetting process at CBS News, and obviously the possibility of this was known. Given the culture of CBS, it is obvious that stars could not be challenged. If Howard had demanded to speak to the document examiners himself, he would essentially have been accusing Mapes of lying. In the report Thornburgh et. al. make much of the fact that the vetters should have been alarmed by the fact that the "chain of custody" of the documents could not be validated, but this is a red herring if the vetters genuinely believed that the documents themselves had been validated, and it is apparent that they did.
The only thing that Howard could have done to stop the segment would have been to audit Mapes' work himself. Was that possibility available to him? The preponderance of the evidence, given CBS News failure to do so after the segment had aired and criticisms were being levelled is that no, it was not. If the entire machinery of CBS News could not be focused to defend itself by reinvestigating Mapes' work, then it is obvious that Howard did not have the authority to do so before the segment had aired.
For 11 days - from the 9th, the day after the segment aired, to the 20th, on which Heyward announced the documents could not be authenticated and should not have been used, the entire weight of CBS News' authority was used exclusively to support the story. Heyward asked West on the 10th to investigate the document examiner's claims independently. It was not done. One would guess that Mapes was still stonewalling, and refused to give up control of the process. Numerous false statements were issued by the publicity arm without being vetted. It is blatantly clear that Moonves is holding Howard to a standard to which people above him in the chain of command could not and did not live up, and this for 11 long days, whereas Howard had 2 at most.
On page 62 of the report:
The Panel views this news coverage as significant because, although such information could have been accessed nearly instantly through Internet or Lexis-Nexis searches, the Panel found that no one involved in the vetting of the September 8 Segment seemed to be aware of it. The Panel finds it unlikely that the Segment would have aired as it did if the vetters had been provided details of Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s controversial history.This again points to the need for independent verification of the investigative reporting done by Mapes. It is, however, blatantly clear that such was not the normal responsibility of an executive producer at CBS News, and the fact that it was not normal practice is shown by the fact that no independent checking was done after the news segment aired. In its recommendations, the report clearly identifies the need for independent checking without relying on one person for facts. The need for an independent top-level executive to which individuals can report doubts and so bypass the chain of command within the news organization is cited. See their recommendations on pages 29 and 30 of the report.
It is impossible for a fair observer, IMO, to read the report and conclude that Howard had the authority to contravene Rather and Mapes, when Heyward himself failed to do so for more than 10 days after the segment. The producers of The Evening News failed to check Rather's statements, later proven to be false, on that broadcast. If the culture of CBS News was such that Howard himself had the option to demand that Mapes' work be reevaluated by an independent authority (when it was not questioned by the two lawyers), then it must also be obvious that Heyward abdicated his responsibility after the segment had aired, and so did those responsible for producing The Evening News (unnamed), and so did those responsible for the false defenses put out by the public relations arm of CBS News (also unnamed).
Furthermore, the recommendations in the report clearly blame the star system at CBS News for the entire organization's failure to be fair and accurate in their reporting. The report also notes, with some alarm, that Rather himself still contends that the story was essentially accurate. In other words, a star at CBS News has no responsibility to form his or her own opinions on the basis of commonly defensible reasoning and fact. So the system itself has not changed, has it?
