Oops, CBS did it again

The venerable institution of journalism known for its deep-digging reports into serious issues known as “60 Minutes” is hardly acknowledging the egg on its face this time around. 

Deja View...

Let’s hit rewind for a second.

 In September 2004, Dan Rather aired a report on “60 Minutes II” that used documents that were supposedly from George W. Bush’s commander in the National Guard. The documents showed that Bush was AWOL from his post – he was accused of “ghosting” his service. 

The authenticity of the documents was called into question – although in the weeks that followed there was no conclusive proof that either substantiated or disproved the documents. Nevertheless, in the wake of the controversial report, CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, four senior executives were asked to resign and anchor Dan Rather was pressured to resign. 

The 2004 report was a big deal. There was a massive shakeup in the personnel involved. CBS issued this apology:

Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.

To summarize, in 2004 CBS cleared house and issued a major apology because they weren’t 100% sure it was accurate. It was not proven to be false or knowingly misleading, but the report was unable to be completely authenticated. And they FIRED EVERYBODY.

 

...All over again

Fast forward to two weeks ago:

“60 Minutes” Benghazi “blockbuster” report had a few problems. The two biggest ones that have attracted the most attention involve CBS’ relationship with their “star” witness, Dylan Davies.

Davies is a British security contractor, which is jargon for sanctioned mercenary, a profession not known for attracting the most upstanding citizens in the first place.  Davies related to CBS an exciting account of terror that featured him climbing walls in fire-lit darkness, knocking out attackers with his rifle-butt and seeing, with his own eyes, the charred body of the deceased Ambassador Stevens. 

It is a tale of high drama, excitement and danger. Davies is the hero who tragically arrives just too late to change the outcome. 

It was also complete bull*&^. 

Davies told his employer AND the FBI that he never even reached the compound. 

Wait...again?

But, that is no reason to let a good story go to waste. In fact, the story was so good, that a CBS-owned company was publishing a book authored by Davies. 

And CBS issued a bare-bones apology that lasted about 90 seconds and didn't answer anything.

Ethics: 0, Sensationalist Bull&^%: 2. 

Wait, there's more...

It gets even worse:

The questions about the veracity of Davies account were known well-before the report aired.

The other “major questions” surrounding the incident had all been either answered or proven inconsequential well before CBS even started their report.

Of course, there is a lot of political interest in the Benghazi attacks -- especially from GOP Congressmen Darrel Issa and Lindsay Graham. Issa has repeatedly attempted to start scurrilous investigations into supposed conspiracies because no one has ever proved an absence of proof of wrongdoing. 

Until someone can pound the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative into Issa’s head, he will keep rabidly spewing conspiracy theories like that crazy uncle that knows there is LSD in the water, the black helicopters are coming to get us, and that vapor trails from airplanes are seeded with mind control drugs.

Graham threatened, again, to hold up appointees and cause the already bumbling legislative branch to grind to a halt over the information in the CBS report.

It does not seem to matter to Graham that the report was blatantly misleading, if not outright false. In his own version of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc reasoning, Graham is not interested in whether the report was factual or was not factual. The report was.

Apparently, that is enough for this southern gentleman.

Bad PR?

There is, however, a darker side to the story.

Whatever the facts surrounding Davies’ story and the events at Benghazi, they have obscured the fact that CBS bet on the fact that outrage sells. That was more important to CBS—and other news stations at other times—than upholding any journalistic ethic.

 “60 Minutes” is probably being discussed more than it has at any point in the time since the 2004 “Memogate.”

 Only this time, CBS is not abashed about being purveyors of prevarications.  And the Viacom/CBS conglomerate is still making money.

Maybe if there were a way to get people so titillated by the truth, there would be more of it on TV.