is unfolding at another media outlet (as this blog has noted here and here), the once respected CBS News. Andrew Sullivan explains how the curtain of ‘big media’ has been yanked by the many Totos of the blogosphere.
I have a feeling that the biggest news of last week had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the media. We are in the middle of an insurgency against the occupation of the airwaves by that amorphous group called–in blogspeak–MSM, or mainstream media. And the latest direct hit has exploded in the illustrious offices of Dan Rather and CBS News.
Sullivan notes the kneejerk defensiveness of a media not used to having its facts under scrutiny, especially by rank amateurs!
What’s riveting has been the reaction of CBS. Like Howell Raines and the directors of the BBC before him, Dan Rather seems to believe that journalism is some kind of caste profession, a calling that no amateur blogger can aspire to….
Blogging’s comparative advantage has nothing to do with the alleged superior skills of bloggers or their higher intelligence, quicker wit, or more fabulous physiques. The blogosphere is a media improvement because the sheer number of blogs, and the speed of response, make errors hard to sustain for very long. The collective mind is also a corrective mind. Transparency is all. And the essence of journalistic trust is not simply the ability to get things right and to present views or ideas or facts clearly and entertainingly. It is also the capacity to admit error, suck it up, and correct what you’ve gotten wrong. Take it from me. I’ve both corrected and been corrected. When you screw up, it hurts. But in the long run, it’s a good hurt, because it takes you down a peg or two and reminds you what you’re supposed to be doing in the first place. Any journalist who starts mistaking himself for an oracle needs to be reminded who he is from time to time.
CBS News has failed on all these counts. It did shoddy reporting and then self-interestedly dug in against an avalanche of evidence against it. Rather can blather all he wants about the political motivation of some in the blogosphere–but what matters is not bias but accuracy. His attitude, moreover, has bordered on the contemptuous; and the blogosphere has chewed him up and spat him out. He has acted as if journalism is a privilege rather than a process; as if his long career makes his critics illegitimate; as if his good motives can make up for bad material. The original mistake was not a firable offense. But the digging in surely is. It seems to me that when a news anchor presents false information and then tries to cover up and deny his errors, he has ceased to be a journalist. I’d like to say that Dan Rather needs to resign from his profession. But, judging from the last few days, he already has.
It seems like we’ve been here before.
“I just heard John Kerry on the news denouncing President Bush for the lapsing assault weapons law. I do know a little about laws. The law as originally passed was MEANT to go away at this time. It would take an act of Congress to keep it. Bush has no power to file legislation; presidents always act through surrogates in Congress. He chose not to, but that didn’t keep any single one of the 435 Reps and 100 Senators from filing an extension on their own. Had John Kerry really wanted to keep the assault weapon ban, he could have filed the appropriate legislation himself and fought for it.” (Wizbang Blog) And the BBC still report it as ‘Kerry denounces Bush etc’ without adding this important proviso – Kerry could have done something about it himself but did not! Typical Beeb – half the story and the missing bit is the important bit which provides balance something sadly lacking on numerous occasions lately and not just in the reporting of the American Election.
But everything Gilligan said was true.
As John Morrison, former deputy chief of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) noted,
“You could almost hear the collective raspberry going up around Whitehall when the prime minister told MPs the threat from Iraq was “current and serious”.
The “45 Minutes from Doom” newspaper headlines, on the other hand, were utterly bogus, but apparently of no concern. Why’s that?
Actually, Sullivan’s late to this party and has had little to do with the sea change of how news and public opinion are dispensed.
More important: though this story dwarfs Gilligan, you can be sure Frei and his “editors” won’t touch it.
In the US, the empire of the news elites is collapsing as we speak. Though it’ll take a while for the message to get from the dinosaur’s brain to the other end at Shepherd’s
Bush, the BBC is now Austria in 1914, sans clue or prayer.
And they won’t be missed. We all get to kick them hard on the way down. What did they expect?
Even staunch Dem supporters like the Washington Post and the New York Times has stripped CBS of any dignity. Other networks such as ABS have started in on the kill. Meanwhile the secretary who would have typed the memos for Lt Col Killian 30 years ago declares they are bogus.
But still the BBC ignores the story. The biggest media story for years (leaving aside Gilligan/Burke) and right in the centre of the Presidential election. Amazing. Well, not really amazing – par for the course, I suppose.
OFF TOPIC
Check out this waste of a licence fee as white middle class losers entertain future palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/middle_east_clowns_without_borders/html/1.stm
Can’t see why the BBC should wish to support it.
Off Topic- But in response to the Ghost of Orwell
If Gilligans story were true why did he apologise? His story was an old story from the Observer, about disquiet in the Intelligence Services. The only new bit was the assertion by Gilligan (‘an unreliable witness’) that the governement had in effect lied. Three BBC journalists interviewed Kelly (Essler, Watts, Gilligan). Only one made this assertion. Similarly only one of these three journalists, effectively, revealed Kelly’s identitiy to the Foreign Affairs Commitee, via e- mailed questions. According to Dyke this was ‘inexcusable’.
This may well have been, the precipitive event that led to the suicide of David Kelly. All the while the BBC was trying to protect its ‘independence’ and its ‘source’?
How appropriate that Orwell used to work for the BBC?
Let’s hope that nobody dies because of Rather’s lies. The news media is full of the story in the U.S., where is Justin Webb now?
——
Nice turn of phrase, Wally “…from the dinosaur’s brain to the other end at Shepherd’s Bush.” 😆
News 24 did cover this story last night. They quoted the secretary JohninLondon mentioned, as saying the memos were forgeries. Unfortunately they also quoted her as saying she believes the contents of the memos accurately reflect her bosses views.
“Unfortunately” why? She said it, after all.
In terms of “the death of big media”, it’s interesting that the only convincing refutation of the NYT story came in the form of the WaPo’s interview with the secretary, while all the blogosphere hysteria about typography turned out to be completely ill-founded (TANG apparently had typewriters at the time capable of producing documents to the exact same specifications as the fakes; but the secretary says she didn’t use them).
john b • why take Nigel Holland to task for the use of the word “unfortunately”? Can’t he hold a viewpoint different to you?
After all, on your own blog I see “It’s disappointing that the Bush National Guard memos appear definitively to be fake.”
“Disappointing”?
Isn’t the exposure of a political dirty trick against a US president more important than the reputation of a politicised autocue reader like Rather?
Lee: “Three BBC journalists interviewed Kelly (Essler, Watts, Gilligan)”
It was Gavin Hewitt who interviewed Kelly, but I take your point.
Gilligan lied, and IMO is most culpable for the Kelly tragedy.
John B,
You really should have looked at LGF’s subsequent articles.
The Kos article mentions that a font consists of more than just the typeface; it also includes rules about spacing, etc.
Unfortunately for Kos, these rules vary in their implementation – not just between modern day word processors and 1970’s typewriters, but also between the same font on the same word processor, printed on different printers (trust me, this has on occasion been the bane of my life!)
Presumably, LGF and the unknown forger use a similar type of printer.
Many of his other points (eg. apparent differences in font, letters appearing to be out of alignment) are artifacts of multi-generational copying (I’ve seen worse).
…
(cont)
The point about superscripting – a fair number of typewriters would have allowed sub/superscripting, but it would have been at normal typesize, not a reduced typesize. It could have been achieved by a special character (as he suggests), but would they really have gone to all the trouble of specially ordering a customised th character? Even more improbable, what are the chances of it exactly matching the same effect in MSWord’s default settings?
In summary, Kos’s criticisms definitively prove nothing.
Michael G – I agree that if you like Bush her accusations are unfortunate. I suspect I misunderstood the original comment: I thought Nigel was saying it was unfortunate *that the BBC reported* the comments, rather than that they were made.
Simon J – I’ve read the followups. They consist mostly of ad hominem attacks against people who’ve debunked Johnson, and assorted attacks on straw figures. The second Kos post deals with most if not all of these.
Even al-Guardian has picked up the story now: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1305261,00.html
Albeit in a very biased sort of way, with an emphasis on “Bush’s military service” not on the forgeries.
Meanwhile, BBC Online does not even reach the low “standards” of reporting set by al-Guardian.
Pathetic.
Re. Susan’s link above – as an aside – spot ye traditional Grauniad typo in the first sentence – or maybe they really mean it’s a desert for Kerry & co. 🙂
ahem, john b:
“…all the blogosphere hysteria about typography turned out to be completely ill-founded.”
I can’t tell whether you’re a fool or a liar, but it doesn’t matter: Brace for incoming crow for supper, kind of chilly.
It’s the kerning, stupid.
B’aint no kerning in them there documents. Read the links, boy.
…and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the subject here, before it turns into rampant abuse of Natalie & co’s hospitality. Debate welcome in my comments section…
johnb
The man’s secretary, who did ALL his typing, says the docs are fakes.
Computer professors have said that even the hugely expensive IMB Selectric Composer 9in effect a typesetting machine) could not have produced the document.
More experts aremerging every day that say the docs are forgeries. Even America’s most famous forger says they are fake.
There is not a single US newspaper saying the documents are genuine.
CBS was to have issued a statement this morning (15 Sept.) in defense of the documents. The time slipped to noon, then to 15:30 then 17:00. As of 18:05 there has yet been no statement from CBS.
It appears that their own document experts have also turned on them and are publicly discussing “problems” with the authenticity of the documents.
Time to swallow the anchor, Dan.
“…and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the subject here, before it turns into rampant abuse of Natalie & co’s hospitality.”
I feel sure that Natalie and co would be delighted to have their hospitality abused rampantly in the service of watching you utterly discredit yourself. A few beer and wine stains on the carpet are a sacrifice well worth paying for such sparkling entertainment.
I expect your desperate, Daily-Kos-clutching-at-straws delusions are shared by the typical BBCoid, hence the silence from that quarter.
What fun.
.
John b
This is an expert in typeface. Read his resume.
The memos are fake.
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm
Forget issues of typeface, superscript, etc. The most compelling evidence I’ve seen is the fact that if you sit down, as one blogger has done, and retype the memos using the default settings of Microsoft Word, the word-processed versions COME OUT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE “ORIGINAL” MEMOS. That is, EACH line contains exactly the same first and last words as the “originals” — the odds of which occurring by happenstance must be slim (especially considering the common use of hyphenation at the end of typewritten lines back then).
That’s exactly what I thought too Paul – leaving aside all the minutiae of what might and might not have been technically possible in the early ’70s (even though such systems are unlikely to have been commonly available), the chances of the formatting and line breaks of these alleged 1970’s documents matching the same thing typed in a current version of Microsoft Word are highly improbable.
It’s bad enough trying to get one version of Word to match with another – let alone to ‘out-of-the-box’ have coincidental ‘settings’ with an ancient typewriter!
But will Dan Blather admit the obvious? Watching CBS evening news on Sky News just now it doesn’t look like he’s even going to touch on it…
Nigel H.: “News 24 did cover this story last night.”
Well yes, but only sort of – the bit that covered it on News 24 was their re-broadcast of ABC’s News programme at 1.30am – it wasn’t part of the BBC’s own coverage – I guess they had a tough choice between dropping that programme (quick, get me Phil Space on the phone!) or running it and hoping that I and the other viewer (presumably that was you Nigel!) wouldn’t be alert enough to spot it!
Of course, the fact that this was broadcast on News 24 does make it even harder for the BBC to pretend that the story doesn’t exist or doesn’t stand up. But we saw this tactic with the Swiftvets controversy too.
I’d bet a lot more than my shirt that they’d be all over this like a rash if the roles were reversed…
Off Topic – 16 September 2004:
The Silence is deafening over at BBC News – at a time when one of the biggest news events of the year, CBS Memogate, is dramatically unfolding. Suppression of information – it’s a beautiful thing. Increase the Licence fee!
Ken kautsky
http://www.realclearpolitics.com carries a daily summary of leading US press and TV stories. The lists over the past week show that Rathergate is a major, major issue in US news.
Where is Matt Frei ? Or is the CBS story too dirty even for him to report ?
The Beeb is absolutely revolting. How do people put up with this chicanery? They are deliberately suppressing a major news story for the sake of their own ideological agenda. How do their editors look themselves in the mirror?
OK, I lied above… Had PJF and KJH actually read my comments, they would have noticed that I conceded the memos were fake. Hunter at Kos refuted all the evidence from charlatans like Charles Johnson, although KJH’s source is admittedly more convincing.
Incidentally: But we saw this tactic with the Swiftvets controversy too.
Doesn’t that imply the BBC is being suitably impartial? It didn’t paid very much attention to the faked smears against Kerry and their fakers, nor the faked smears against Bush and their fakers. In both cases, a more proactive approach towards exposing them would have been better – but that’s a difficult editorial judgement, not a case of bias.
john b
The SwiftVets are real people, over 200 hundred of them, Dems as well as Republicans – willing to be interviewed, making affidavits, standing by their case. They have documented their case, and have already caused the kerry campaign to concede on major issues. That is why it is a REAL story that the BBC should cover.
The CBS story is based on fraud, forgery – just read all the mainstream US media, even the liberal media. THAT is what makeit a big story – a deliberate attack on a candidate based on FALSE DOCUMENTS.
The BBC should have covered BOTH stories. Both stories are having a direct effect on the campaign.
What is the BBC’s budget for US coverage? Probably up to £10 million of OUR money each year. Could be much more than that. And they will have a sizeable budget just for the election itself. It is scandalous that they fail to cover important issues such as the Swift Boat vets and the CBS forgery scam – and it is even more scandalous that the likely reason is that neither story is creditable to THEIR PREFERRED CANDIDATE.
Lo and behold, Pravda-on-the-Thames is finally forced to admit that there’s a story going on here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3662668.stm
Lots of emphasize on the secretary’s saying that the memos’ content was “accurate” even if they were forgeries — no mention of Killian’s family who said he never said anything like it.
Susan: Also no mention (a) that she first popped up a couple of days ago in an interview in the Dallas Morning News and wasn’t (it seems) ever a factor in any decisions made by Rather/60 Minutes, and (b) that she’s a life-long Democrat, 86-years-old, and distinctly wobbly.
CBS’ defence du jour amounts to ‘None of it is accurate but all of it is true, though we won’t tell you why.’
Big broken reed/broken record thing here — How familiar it must all seem to the anti-American bigots in the BBC’s newsrooms…
wally,
When all is said and done, Kerry’s campaign is deader than McGovern’s in ’72. In fact he’s looking worse than McGovern, which takes some doing.
Come November, the Beeb will end up looking extremely foolish after its extensive happy-clappy coverage of Kerry’s campaign — at least amongst us American readers. Will the majority of British people even notice, though? Or will it all come down to, “those Yanks were too stupid to go for that wonderful guy in the French shirts?”
I’ve never seen so much bandwidth wasted over a bunch of memos (well, not since the Mutton inquiry).
Is this the biggest news event of the year? Actually, no, it’s not.
I’d rate it somewhere between the paper review and the World Bog-Snorkelling Championships.
It’s just a bunch of backbiting, over-analysing, US media luvvies having a bitch with the bloggers, while the truth quietly packs its bags and leaves town, it’s head hanging in shame.
Nothing new there then. Yawn. Back to your lives citizens.
Ah right Reith, so Rathergate isn’t news, yet the 31st anniversary of the overthrow of Allende in Chile is (News Online front page, numerous links, all over the weekend).
Back to what Reith and co. serve up, and no more, citizens.
And again, the conclusion that just because I beg to differ, I must be on the BBC’s payroll.
Rubbish.
As for Chile, a Google search reveals there was only one News Online story written about the anniversary of Allende’s overthrow.
The same number of stories as has been written about Rathergate, which I think is a fairly accurate reflection of their relative merit thus far.
Check the facts – You’re so busy jumping to your own slanted conclusions, you wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you in the face.
When all is said and done, Kerry’s campaign is deader than McGovern’s in ’72. In fact he’s looking worse than McGovern, which takes some doing.
In September 1972, McGovern was 15 points behind Nixon. In September 2004, Kerry is somewhere between one and 10 points behind Bush depending on which poll you look at. Bush still has a *disapproval* rating above 50%.
Saying things doesn’t make them so.
Wrong again Reith – on two counts.
Firstly – News Online’s coverage of Allende at the weekend had several links off of the homepage, including a couple of feature boxes and, strangely enough, a link from the Java ‘Latest:’ news ticker; Meanwhile, the Rathergate coverage is four clicks from the homepage, via Americas and Vote USA 2004 – heck it doesn’t even get a mention on the Vote USA 2004 section on the Americas page.
Secondly, there were three Chile/Allende pages highlighted over the weekend, here, here and here.
(incidentally, it’s rather brave of a Bush supporter to compare this election to 1972. More on that here).
john b,
Did you actually witness the ’72 elections? I did, and Kerry smells more like McGovern than any other Dem I know of. He’s dead meat.
* Sigh *
Here, here, and here!!!! And here is where your toys have been thrown out of the pram! Such petulance!
Problem is two of the “here”s are versions of the same story, while the third is a feature piece from “On This Day”, so doesn’t count as news.
Dunno about you, but a riot in Santiago is more newsworthy than some talking heads arguing about superscripts. As for the numbers of clicks, headlines and links, you really should get out more.
IMHO, so far these stories have got what they editorially merited. So no bias there then. As I said, check your facts. You really do need to get a grip dear chap.
The point is Reith, the Allende stuff is featured prominently – all acroos the weekend – just one click off the News Online homepage, whereas the half-hearted mention of Rathergate is four-clicks away, for those that go looking for it.
I’ll leave others to judge which of us is interpreting these contradictions properly.
P.S. Your honour remains tarnished. You really should apologise when you behave obnoxiously, even if you don’t remember it or were too drunk at the time or whatever. Either that or take yourself elsewhere permanently instead of trying to duck the issue by waiting a few weeks before popping up again.
Did you actually witness the ’72 elections?
Sadly not, I was a bit too unborn at the time. I’ve read quite a lot on them, though.
Do you think the right candidate won in 1972?
Reith
If Rathergate is not big news, how come all the US media keep covering it, and most of the major newspapers have carried editorials on it. That represents lots of editorial decisions that the story is important in the election. Click on the homepages of any of the networks and it is there, every day.
The BBC is deliberately ignoring a topic that most everyone in the US now knows about. Your faux tone is totally unconvincing. Press forgery or promotion of forgery in an election is an important issue, whatever nonsense view you take on the matter.
Sadly not, I was a bit too unborn at the time. I’ve read quite a lot on them, though.
Do you think the right candidate won in 1972?
Well, that’s not really the question is it john b? Nice try at deflecting the real issue however. The real issue being that Kerry is running a crap campaign that sinks further into the abyss every day. And if he’s not exactly McGovern in ’72, then he’s edging up on Mondale in ’84 or Dukakas in ’88.
I have a feeling that “Memogate” will prove to be Kerry’s Tom Eagleton moment.
Susan
A leading Dem poll analyst (yes Dem) said a week ago thsat if the documents are shown to be fake, it really is the end of the line for Kerry. An innate sense of public decency will sink him totally.
It is noticeable how more and more leading Dem commentators – Andrew Sullivan for example at andrewsullivan.com – are severely criticising CBS for dragging the Kerry campaign down.
The new Economist poll, with fieldwork done after the WaPo secretary interview that debunked the documents, has GWB 47/Kerry 46. McGoverntacular…
john b,
And just how many US election seasons have you lived through? Can’t have been many if you weren’t even born yet in ’72.
Based on my experience, Kerry’s going down, dude. Deal with it.
johnb
Try averaging the polls. realclearpolitics.com has been showing Bush 48/49 and Kerry trailing at 42/43 for over a week now. If you want to cite individual polls, try Gallip showing na 14 point lead for Bush – 54 to 40.