In his article "CBS Betrays Its Blood Lust for Bush", The Herald's television columnist, Glenn Garvin, gives the best summation of the CBS Rathergate panel report that I've seen. It's especially satisfying seeing this article in print in the pages of the Miami Herald, whose editor last year swore there was no such thing as liberal bias in the news. Garvin concludes:
So CBS reporters spent five years on a story they had been told from the beginning was shaky; they plotted a book deal for a source to encourage disclosures that ''could possibly change the momentum of an election;'' they got in bed with the Kerry campaign; but political bias doesn't have anything to do with it?
That's a conclusion that will play very well at CBS, which has spent three decades burying its head in the sand to avoid being confronted with Rather's political shenanigans. He publicly insulted President Nixon, then got into an on-air shouting match with the first President Bush. Just three years ago he gave a speech at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Texas. If the network had disciplined Rather for any of those things, if it had sent a message that it wouldn't tolerate confusion between its reporters' personal politics and their professional duties, it might have avoided Monday's humiliating mess.
Likewise, the independent panel would have done CBS an immense favor by advising the network to take a hard look at itself. Former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, in his book Bias, wrote that many newsrooms are locked in a collective groupthink that prevents them from noticing their political leanings any more than a fish notices water.
It's not that there's a morning meeting where reporters and editors sit down to conspire against Bush or Republicans; rather, because they overwhelmingly share the same liberal ideology, what strikes outsiders as political bias simply seems common sense to them. If ''everybody knows'' that Bush is a liar, a coward and a spoiled rich kid, there's no need to spend a lot of time proving it.
The independent panel came tantalizingly close to putting its finger on the problem when it said CBS pursued the Bush story with ''myopic zeal.'' But the panel attributed the myopia to competitive journalistic instincts, the drive to get a story first, rather than politics. After all, everybody knows there's no liberal bias in the news business.
Posted by floridacracker at January 16, 2005 09:45 PMthat and the fact that we live in the era of press-release journalism. Someone issues a press release. You read it. Then you find someone who disagrees and rebuts it. Doesn't matter if either side is full of it. You file the story and get the next press release.
Posted by: James at January 16, 2005 10:02 PMI don't know how that works. All I know is that when I was going to school in Massachusetts, none of the locals thought there was anything slightly off about the way they pronounced things.
Posted by: Donnah at January 16, 2005 10:08 PMBill Cosby had a cute routine that mentioned it. In Mass they say he had a hat attack. You mean his hat got off his head and physically assaulted him? No! His hat attacked him! His hat! His hat!
I worked with a Bostonian once, and that's exactly how she spoke.
Posted by: James at January 16, 2005 11:18 PMThe article has a great description of the editorial process in a newsroom - I've spent many years in TV, about 13 of those in newsrooms, and the description is spot on. For all the media's concentration on diversity, and there is pretty good racial and gender diversity, the people in newsrooms come from a very narrow socio-economic background - the middle of the middle class. Rarely do you find someone who grew up rich, ever rarer is someone who grew up poor. Thus you have people who are moderately liberal - the kind of folks conservatives call liberals and leftists call right wing tools of corporate Amerika.
Newsrooms have bias. They don't have a liberal agenda. Most folks in newsrooms are not smart enough, nor educated enough, to have an agenda about anything but advancing their own careers.
Plus they're lazy. They do a large number of stories based on what's faxed into the newsroom. Or that they rip off the wire. Or they steal from the newspaper.
Posted by: Juan at January 17, 2005 08:01 AMThe article lays bare one of Dick's lies - The smear attempt was caused by a RUSH TO PUBLISH. What rush?! Dan had been working on the TANG smear over five years, spending $millions on "research". Dick lied in his attempt to provide Viacom a coverup. This lie is now exposed for what is is.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 17, 2005 04:08 PM