CBS confuses me

[John Galt]

This is from the AP. A story about Iraq is "inappropriate," but a story about Bush's National Guard record is???? Are we sure CBS isn't working for the Bush campaign?

NEW YORK - CBS News has shelved a "60 Minutes" report on the rationale for war in Iraq because it would be "inappropriate" to air it so close to the presidential election, the network said on Saturday.

The report on weapons of mass destruction was set to air on Sept. 8 but was put off in favor of a story on President Bush's National Guard service. The Guard story was discredited because it relied on documents impugning Bush's service that were apparently fake.

CBS News spokeswoman Kelli Edwards would not elaborate on why the timing of the Iraq report was considered inappropriate.

The report, with Ed Bradley as the correspondent, has long been in the works. Originally scheduled for June, it was first put off because of new developments, Edwards said.

CBS said no other reports on the presidential election have been affected.

The network last week appointed former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief executive Louis Boccardi to investigate what went wrong with the National Guard report and recommend changes.

The controversy has put CBS News officials squarely on the fire line, particularly anchor Dan Rather, who narrated the National Guard report.

Meanwhile, the network announced that Rather would anchor the network's coverage of all three presidential debates, starting Sept. 30.

[Cringer]

Maybe it just comes down to them being a bunch of dumbasses who are not too sure of what they are doing......

[BigJohn&TheLions]

CBS = See B.S.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Perhaps it is not appropriate because they haven't fully vetted their sources? Maybe they are triple checking their facts?

Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt...

[Ksyrup]

Maybe it's an over-reaction to the national guard story fallout.

[CamEdwards]

or maybe they looked at it and realized it was too partisan and not interested in telling both sides of the story.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: That's my understanding. From what I've read this story is about the forged NIger documents that led to the "sixteen words". The story is very interesting with some interesting connections to Ghorbanifar and Italian Intelligence, but it primarily claims that the admin shouldn't have been duped by obviously forged documents. Not exactly a strong argument for CBS to be making.

[SackAttack]

I think Farrah's probably got the right of it this time. They just got burned for not checking their sources, and accused of basically trying to influence a Presidential election in the process.

Their credibility is already damaged - their own fault, yes, but that makes it no less true - so I'm really not surprised that they might be unwilling to risk having an anvil fall on their heads for the second time in a month. It'd be interesting, though, if the story turned out to buttress the claims of the Bush Administration re: Iraq's WMD, and got shelved. The "we aren't sure of our sources" excuse might buy them a little leeway in light of recent events, but it wouldn't look good for them as far as nonpartisan reporting goes.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

...but it primarily claims that the admin shouldn't have been duped by obviously forged documents. Not exactly a strong argument for CBS to be making.

The irony is thick, here.

[Cringer]

But how could having not run the story have to do with the outcome of the National Guard/Bush story? The article says the story was to run Sept. 8th, but they went with the National Guard/Bush story instead.......so as I see it, their choice to not run the story has nothing to do with what has happened since lately.

Am I reading the article up top wrong?

[JPhillips]

Cringer: No you are right on the initial bump, but at the time the producer was told the story would run later. After the TANG story blew up the story has apparantly been killed or at least postponed until after the election.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cringer: No you are right on the initial bump, but at the time the producer was told the story would run later. After the TANG story blew up the story has apparantly been killed or at least postponed until after the election.

ah, ok then. thanks

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Cringer

But how could having not run the story have to do with the outcome of the National Guard/Bush story? The article says the story was to run Sept. 8th, but they went with the National Guard/Bush story instead.......so as I see it, their choice to not run the story has nothing to do with what has happened since lately.

Am I reading the article up top wrong?

Yes. They had this story ready a few months ago, but new info came out and they held it to flesh it out. Then it was going to run September 8th, but the NG story was bigger in their minds so that went with that instead. Now, because of the fallout, they are afraid to run this story. Classic overreaction.

[GrantDawg]

I'm catching Draft Dodger disease.

[TroyF]

Why on Earth would CBS want to air a controversial story right now? Doing so puts themselves in an incredibly dangerous position. The higher profile the case, the more scrutiny they receive.

They need a LOW profile right now. A really low profile.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

A story about Iraq is "inappropriate," but a story about Bush's National Guard record is???? Are we sure CBS isn't working for the Bush campaign?

I can barely imagine the mental gymnastics that would be required to take the CBS forged memo scandal and give it a "the media is pro-Bush" spin.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Perhaps it is not appropriate because they haven't fully vetted their sources? Maybe they are triple checking their facts?

Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt...

this has got to be up there on the UIC scale...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Aadik

this has got to be up there on the UIC scale...

UIC scale? What is that?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I can barely imagine the mental gymnastics that would be required to take the CBS forged memo scandal and give it a "the media is pro-Bush" spin.

Sarcasm.

However, I've done a bit of work in another thread to show that the media may not be liberal at all. Overall, I think the media is very pro-whoever-is-in-power and very pro-corporate (which means right now it is treating Bush with kid gloves).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

UIC scale? What is that?

Unintentional Comedy Scale..

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

However, I've done a bit of work in another thread to show that the media may not be liberal at all. Overall, I think the media is very pro-whoever-is-in-power and very pro-corporate (which means right now it is treating Bush with kid gloves).

Which thread?

Personally, I think the media as a whole is more balanced than we think. The fact that everone -- right and left -- thinks the media is biased in favor of the other guy is a pretty good sign, I'd argue.

Agreed about the corporate bias, though.

[MrBug708]

Let's see if I have it.

1. False reports about Bush come out.
2. FCC nails CBS with a 550K fine, biggest ever
3. CBS is trying to kiss Bush's ass

[JPhillips]

And i thought UIC meant Uninformed internet chat!

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Unintentional Comedy Scale..

Ah..glad I asked.

[Abe Sargent]

CBS is having Rather anchor their Debate coverage? Right now, I'd want to dtsitance Rather as much as possible from the election in order to keep a low profile.

-Anxiety