Rather Caves, Suits Rule

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question. But we did use the documents.

We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. -- statement of Dan Rather, 20 September 2004.

Dear Mary Mapes --

This is their opening salvo. The questions that arise are: (1) why didn't he "know then what he knows now?," and (2) who was primarily responsible for the "mistake in judgement?" The suits will answer both questions with your name.

Note the effort to separate the "story" from the "documents." Dan doesn't do document verification, that someone else's job. The suits will say it was your job.

Read tomorrow's newspapers very carefully, especially the NYT and the WaPo. The second salvo will be found therein.

All Best -- Ellisblog

Blame Shift

Dear Mary Mapes:

Now that the suits have decided to abandon ship, the game begins. The name of this game, as you well understand, is called "blame shifting" and the person to whom the blame will be shifted is you.

This process is now underway. The quotes about your integrity and character will quickly be flipped to read "we had no idea she was as crazy as a hoot owl." The pivot (for them) will be the assertion that you've been working on this story for five years. Diligence, they will say, crossed over to obsession. And obsession, they will say (sadly), caused you to disregard better judgement.

Since they have a record of all your e-mails and phone calls and cell phone calls, they will likely find there a number of telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of people affiliated with the DNC, the Kerry campaign and various anti-Bush 527s. They will use those to destroy your credibility. And they will say that had they known about these "unprofessional" oppo research relationships, which the e-mail traffic and phone calls will almost certainly document, they would never have allowed "your" story to air.

Mr. Rather, your erstwhile colleague, has a choice to make and he will side with management. So if you're looking for help there, forget it.

Hire a lawyer and an agent. Do not resign. Do not agree to any "internal inquiry" until you have talked to a lawyer. Have the agent put out word to various publications that you are drafting a longish article on "what really happened." The one thing they can't afford is "your side of the story" out there for all to read. So they will pay you a ton of money not to publish.

Take the money and run, with a contract that says "one disparaging word about Mary Mapes and the 'tell-all' article runs" on your new blog.

Welcome to the blogosphere.

All Best -- Ellisblog

Rout

Well, you knew that Tiger was going to make fairly short work of Paul Casey, so the key match turned out to be the second; Mickelson vs. Garcia. Could Mickelson derail the best Ryder Cup player on either team?

Not a chance. Garcia destroyed Mickelson over the last eight holes of their match and the rout of the Americans was on. Kudos to the Europeans, who were magnificent. And kudos as always to NBC analyst Johnny Miller, the best in the business by about nine miles.

Less is More


The major broadcast network value proposition these days is as follows: you pay more money to advertise to fewer people. People like NBC's Jeff Zucker and Les (who cares about the CBS News brand?) Moonves maintain that this is a "win-win" situation. Finally, one brand (Mitsubishi Motor) has pulled the plug:

Last week, the Mitsubishi Motor Company pulled every penny of its advertising from prime-time network shows, $120 million worth, because, as Ian Beavis, its senior vice president for marketing, put it, "There's nothing compelling in the new network programming."

Mr. Beavis, who said Mitsubishi would place more ads on cable and local television shows, as well as spend more on magazines and Internet sites, said he was just one of many advertisers expressing frustration with the networks.

"How long can you pay more for less?" he asked. "Someone has to finally say enough."

The Dream Team

It was clear from the moment it was announced that pairing Tiger Woods with Phil (Mr. Callaway) Mickelson was a really bad idea and that it was. Team Europe thrashed the hapless Americans on Day One of the Ryder Cup. The hapless US television commentators reverted to "Monty the Great," by way of explanation, but it wasn't just Monty (great as he always is in Ryder Cup play). Darren Clarke, Sergio Garcia and especially Padraig Harrington were sensational.

Also sensational were the fans from Michigan. After the beery boorishness of Brookline in 1999, it was a welcome relief to hear the Michiganders applaud the fine play of the Euros while rooting hard for the home team.

Wishing It Weren't So


Kausfiles has a funny bit about yesterday's Note from the political team at ABC News. One reason Real Clear Politics has become the best bookmark of the 2004 campaign is that they separate news aggregation from opinion.

Concerted Effort


Here's an excellent chronology of the CBS News-National Guard documents story from the always excellent Corante. One thing that the author leaves out of his time-line is that the 60 Minutes story was the linchpin of a post-GOP Convention "stop-the-Bush-bounce" counterattack by the DNC and the Kerry campaign.

The Boston Globe and The New York Times provided newspaper "stories" about Bush's National Guard service. 60 Minutes provided the crucial, prime-time television coverage. And the DNC ran an ad that "contexted" the issue. If you think this was not all of a piece, let me introduce you to a friend of mine in the real estate business.

Happily enough, we now know that on 2 September, in the early evening, someone faxed a copy of the fraudulent documents to CBS News from a Kinkos in Texas. There were six security cameras working at that Kinkos, so we will soon know the identity of the person who faxed the documents to CBS News. Once we know that, the rest will unravel.

Fake But Accurate?

"In accordance with longstanding journalistic ethics, CBS News is not prepared to reveal its confidential sources or the method by which 60 MINUTES Wednesday received the documents."

Why not? The documnets are obviously fraudulent. CBS News has been badly tarnished as a result. I would think that someone at CBS or at Viacom would be ready to lynch whoever did this to CBS News. Any ethical obligation to the source, as emailer CM notes below, is forfeited if the documents are fraudulent.

Emailer CM is right about this. The identity of the source is the hinge of the story.

Endgame

Dear Mr. Ellis,

If CBS were to acknowledge the documents to be a forgery, then they could not claim ethical responsibility to protect their sources. Once implicated, the sources might further implicate those who encouraged them. Where would this lead?

Has any reporter ever gone to jail for protecting the source of a forged document? A document which the reporter himself acknolwedges to be false?

CBS will continue to maintain authenticity. They have no alternative. They have been very clearly advised on this by their attorneys.

The risk calculations are much different than for an ordinary news fraud. The business cost to CBS of acknowledging forgery could ultimately be much larger than mere damage to the brand. Think Arthur Andersen.

--CM

Pajama Party

So when does Dan Rather resign? The story he still insists is true has collapsed under sustained assault by the blogosphere. It appears that his most important media ally -- The New York Times -- has decided to cut its losses. And yet Rather continues to double down -- insisting even in private that the story is true.

What we are looking at here is a mini-Tailwind, politically-loaded fiction masquerading as "investigative journalism." Ordinarily, in situations like this, corporations move very quickly to isolate the damage and protect their brand image. A "producer" is fingered as the problem, a ritual sacrifice is held, appropriate apologies are offered, and the game begins anew.

Mr. Rather has put his CBS superiors in a very difficult place. By insisting that this phony story is true, he has denied them the easy damage control game plan. Indeed, he has put them in a nearly untenable position; they must choose between what the know to be true (that the story is phony and therefore damaging to the brand image of CBS News) and one of their largest investments (Rather himself).

At the end of the day (not that they give a damn about CBS News or journalistic integrity) they'll have to choose to defend the brand. Which means that the "damage" they will have to isolate is Rather himself. You can bet that tomorrow will not be a happy day at CBS Headquarters. A bunch of guys in pajamas have seen to that.