Media Bias and Mis-information

[Jack Dawson]

A different point of view

I think it is pretty known the Big 3 networks are dying. Someone earlier wrote they have more commercials and less in-depth coverage. That is true and that mean Less Liberal News also. The Big 3 have gone to a lot of 'fluff' reporting instead of 'hard news. When I was in radio news, we covered ALL sides of the story and generally there were many more than simply 'both sides' there was 'all sides". That is not being done any more and radio news has been replaced by cable news networks. Radio like Clear Channel will own up to 6 to 8 stations in a market and you will hear exactly the same newscast on all of the stations and none of the news will be local.

The thing Americans need to watch in the complete control of the media some companies are getting. It used to be you could own one AM and One FM station in a market and either a TV station or a newspaper but not both. Now you can own what ever you can pay for. Liberal of Conservative that is a danger to all of us.

 

[myshkin]

Re: A different point of view

I think it is pretty known the Big 3 networks are dying. Someone earlier wrote they have more commercials and less in-depth coverage. That is true and that mean Less Liberal News also. The Big 3 have gone to a lot of 'fluff' reporting instead of 'hard news. When I was in radio news, we covered ALL sides of the story and generally there were many more than simply 'both sides' there was 'all sides". That is not being done any more and radio news has been replaced by cable news networks. Radio like Clear Channel will own up to 6 to 8 stations in a market and you will hear exactly the same newscast on all of the stations and none of the news will be local.

The thing Americans need to watch in the complete control of the media some companies are getting. It used to be you could own one AM and One FM station in a market and either a TV station or a newspaper but not both. Now you can own what ever you can pay for. Liberal of Conservative that is a danger to all of us.

Well stated Jack.

 

[argexpat]

Re: A different point of view

The thing Americans need to watch in the complete control of the media some companies are getting. It used to be you could own one AM and One FM station in a market and either a TV station or a newspaper but not both. Now you can own what ever you can pay for. Liberal of Conservative that is a danger to all of us.

While I agree that media consolidation is a bad thing, it's hard to argue that we have less variety in the media now than before. If anything, there's too much media out there. Thirty years ago there were no 24-hour cable news channels, satellite radio or the amazing internet. Right now there is more information at my fingertips than I can keep up with. And media companies may be consolidating, but that's because they have to compete with so many different sources now, and historically consolidation has not been very successful (see the AOL/Time Warner debacle.)

Today, there's really no excuse for anyone to be ill-informed. It's all out there, you just have to want to find it.

 

[argexpat]

Re: A different point of view

P.S. Here's an excellent article on media consolidation: http://slate.com/id/2104777

 

[aquapub]

I have recently been nominated for an award at UC for a research project I did on whether or not print and TV news have a liberal bias. My research was overwhelmingly compelling. I even got our professor-who, like the vast majority of educators "objectively" disseminating the world's events in our universities, is a flaming liberal- to admit it was a serious problem.

I produced one study showing that in election 2000, states were called early for Gore when he was one or two points ahead, while states like Alabama, which went early for Bush by double-digit margins, were delayed for hours to make it look like Gore was winning.

There were literally hundreds of examples like this.

And I examined "What Liberal Media Bias" by Eric Alterman, the FAIR website, and Al Franken's outrageously dishonest joke of a book for balance too. As usual, the only responses anyone on the left had were based on the actions of OPINION journalists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, rather than on reporters who were SUPPOSED TO BE objective, like Dan Rather.


In short, Yes! Emphatically, the media has a gross liberal bias.

 

[Squawker]

Hi there aquapub ! :2wave:

I agree with ya. :2dance:​

 

[alienken]

Re: A different point of view

While I agree that media consolidation is a bad thing, it's hard to argue that we have less variety in the media now than before. If anything, there's too much media out there. Thirty years ago there were no 24-hour cable news channels, satellite radio or the amazing internet. Right now there is more information at my fingertips than I can keep up with. And media companies may be consolidating, but that's because they have to compete with so many different sources now, and historically consolidation has not been very successful (see the AOL/Time Warner debacle.)

Today, there's really no excuse for anyone to be ill-informed. It's all out there, you just have to want to find it.

True, but with all of this coverage they all focus on the big story, usually the big court cases when they have time to cover many stories.

 

[myshkin]

I have recently been nominated for an award at UC for a research project I did on whether or not print and TV news have a liberal bias. My research was overwhelmingly compelling. I even got our professor-who, like the vast majority of educators "objectively" disseminating the world's events in our universities, is a flaming liberal- to admit it was a serious problem.

I produced one study showing that in election 2000, states were called early for Gore when he was one or two points ahead, while states like Alabama, which went early for Bush by double-digit margins, were delayed for hours to make it look like Gore was winning.

There were literally hundreds of examples like this.

And I examined "What Liberal Media Bias" by Eric Alterman, the FAIR website, and Al Franken's outrageously dishonest joke of a book for balance too. As usual, the only responses anyone on the left had were based on the actions of OPINION journalists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, rather than on reporters who were SUPPOSED TO BE objective, like Dan Rather.


In short, Yes! Emphatically, the media has a gross liberal bias.

What does liberal mean?
Are you using the English Language definition of liberal or do you mean liberal as used by right wing propagandists?
I am not aware of the propagandists ever actually defining the term but they don’t seem to use it in a way compatible with the English definition.

Now, Google “media ownership”. Which of these corporate owners are ‘liberal’ either by the English Language Definition or by the right wing propaganda usage?

Look at the one titled “Big Ten”. A lot of media in a very few hands.

Rather than repeat what I posted earlier let me direct you to #112, 114, 117, 122


In the case of the Gore/Bush election long before the election the 'liberal media' reported widely that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet.
It was reported widely enough so that almost every American new of it but it was patently false. How would a media that you suggest is pro-Gore report this fabrication so widely as news?

 

[alienken]

What does liberal mean?
Are you using the English Language definition of liberal or do you mean liberal as used by right wing propagandists?
I am not aware of the propagandists ever actually defining the term but they don’t seem to use it in a way compatible with the English definition.

Now, Google “media ownership”. Which of these corporate owners are ‘liberal’ either by the English Language Definition or by the right wing propaganda usage?

Look at the one titled “Big Ten”. A lot of media in a very few hands.

Rather than repeat what I posted earlier let me direct you to #112, 114, 117, 122


In the case of the Gore/Bush election long before the election the 'liberal media' reported widely that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet.
It was reported widely enough so that almost every American new of it but it was patently false. How would a media that you suggest is pro-Gore report this fabrication so widely as news?

In a politics debate forum you know that the word liberal is another word for the left wing. These labels are not the same as the definition of the English words. Al Gore DID take credit for the internet, I heard the speech. The liberal media DOES protect the libs/dems but only to a point. They might report it but they can do things like bury or gloss over it.

 

[argexpat]

In a politics debate forum you know that the word liberal is another word for the left wing. These labels are not the same as the definition of the English words. The liberal media DOES protect the libs/dems but only to a point. They might report it but they can do things like bury or gloss over it.

You also know that in a proper debate, you must define your terms, so please define "left wing" and "liberal media."

 

[argexpat]

I have recently been nominated for an award at UC for a research project I did on whether or not print and TV news have a liberal bias. In short, Yes! Emphatically, the media has a gross liberal bias.

First, congrats on your award! :applaud

Second, did you define "liberal" and "bias" in your research project? Calling states for Gore early is anecdotal evidence, and there may have been practical reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with bias. (As any sophomore debater will tell you, the problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's easily countered with an equal amount of opposing anecdotal evidence.) This is hardly "emphatic" evidence of any kind of systemic bias, let alone a "gross liberal" one.

 

[Fantasea]

Calling states for Gore early is anecdotal evidence, and there may have been practical reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with bias.

With respect to the veracity most people attach to this kind of "Gore story", "Yeah, right."

 

[myshkin]

In a politics debate forum you know that the word liberal is another word for the left wing. These labels are not the same as the definition of the English words. Al Gore DID take credit for the internet, I heard the speech. The liberal media DOES protect the libs/dems but only to a point. They might report it but they can do things like bury or gloss over it.

In March 2000 Gore was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and in that interview he was asked of what achievement are you most proud.
He answered that he was most proud of having taken the initiative in the development of the internet. Which was precisely accurate.
Blitzer didn't give it another thought, as someone in the news business he is reasonably well informed and was probably aware that no one in either House of Congress had done more to take what was public property and do the work to make it available to the public as it is today.

Two days later there were rumblings from within the RNC saying that Gore claimed to have invented the internet. They fed that BS to their reliable chorus, The Washington Times, Fox News and Talk Radio and in a few days it became conventional wisdom.

I don't know what you imagine you heard in a speech but I'm sure you can't find a transcript.

if you listen closer to the way that the word liberal is used by propagandists you will find that it is used to dismiss a point of view without ever addressing the issue specifically.

Look at the manner that Aquapub uses the word to fit a stereotype of educated NE urban sophisticates that are in some way elites. The best part of this is that the stereotype has been drawn by think tanks funded by REAL ELITES, who in the early 70s became fearful that the US might become democratic. Small d

The Washington Press Corp had no use for Gore. With very few exceptions they simply didn't like him.

No one in American History has had a pass like GW Bush. He has been a failure all of his life. He was the least qualified candidate to run for President on a major party ticket since at least the 19th century if not the beginning of the republic.

 

[Squawker]

:2funny: :mrgreen:

 

[akyron]

Media Bias Basics

Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."
It is an older study but perhaps still valid.

Of course media in general is biased. How can it not be? Until we get robot reporters we will not get unfiltered facts...ever. People cannot help adding a little bit of themselves into what they write no matter how hard they try.

Fox is slanted to the right. Almost every other news network is slanted to the left.


"60 Minutes has now obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal file. Among them, a never before seen memorandum from May 1972 where Colonel Killian writes that Lieutenant Bush called him to talk about how he 'can get out of coming to drill from now through November.’ We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."
"The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of the evidence, including documents that were provided by what we consider to be solid sources."
- Dan Rather on the September 8 60 Minutes, followed by Rather on the September 10 CBS Evening News.
as it turns out The Bush "Guard memos" are forgeries.

Whatever. This is nothing new. I think we are failing to see what is really going on here. If the media is so liberally biased then why are Republicans doing so great for the last decade? Americans should be aware by now of bias and take the "news" with a grain of salt by now.

The liberal media bias is hurting the democratic party more than helping certainly.
It is like that obnoxious kid in the 5th grade that just will not shut up. After awhile you do not even care what he is saying you just want some peace and quiet. Fox news is just as bad but being the only network with a right/mainstream slant they cannot inundate you if you change the channel.
All parties eventually hang themselves. If democrats want another turn at the wheel they need to take a step back and reexamine their presentations.


I personally prefer the history channel and even that can be biased at times.

 

[gordontravels]

Perception is what makes nearly every arguement in this thread right. The liberal is happy with the liberal media and sees no bias or maybe just enough that they can write it off to the other side being touchy. The conservative can do the same thing and so it goes.

There is media bias and if not outright mis-information then at least there are those in the media that won't report both sides and that is the peak of bias. It's one thing to take a side but when it is a "news outlet" and they refuse to give both sides equal time then that is bias that no one can deny. Of course there will be those here and in the media that WILL deny. Again, to even breathe that there is no bias or it doesn't hurt is to be so ill informed as to be put on iggy for not wanting to participate in reality.

There is media bias on every "news outlet" you can find anywhere at any time. It's true you know? I will follow this post with an example of media omission. See if you've heard it. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

This is an e-mail a good friend sent me back on February 17th of this year. You may have heard reference to one or two of these items in the news media but, I doubt it. Why would the media tell you anything about this when they can tell you about a car bomb? By the way, you all, all of you on both sides enable our media to do what they do or don't. So do I if I don't speak out. My friend sent this to me and I thank her. It took an old woman to do what our media wouldn't do for me and you.

DID YOU KNOW THIS?
Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraqi's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons, 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers? [Thank you, Ron!]

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a recent televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Because a Bush- hating media and Democratic Party would rather see the world blow up than lose their power.

Instead of shouting these accomplishments from every rooftop, they would rather show photos of what a few perverted malcontent soldiers have done in prisons in many cases never disclosing the circumstances surrounding the events.

Instead of showing our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at presidential motorcades.

The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves only one purpose. It undermines the world's perception of the United States and our soldiers.

I AM ASHAMED OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS WHO WOULD RATHER SEE TERRORISM SUCCEED THAN A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

---- This is verifiable on the Department of Defense website.

I don't necessarily agree with the last statements in this presentation since I usually prefer to speak for myself but - there is more than car bombs in Iraq and just as was predicted by none other than me some months ago, fewer Americans and Coalition forces are dying in Iraq as the Iraqis take over their own country. What we have done there has been to install a democracy that is forever stronger than the so called insurgents. I for one think the media misses the point every single day. Problem is that if you rely on our media you miss the point too. At least these points presented here should mean something to you if you have read them. :duel

 

[Fantasea]

I don't necessarily agree with the last statements in this presentation since I usually prefer to speak for myself but - there is more than car bombs in Iraq and just as was predicted by none other than me some months ago, fewer Americans and Coalition forces are dying in Iraq as the Iraqis take over their own country. What we have done there has been to install a democracy that is forever stronger than the so called insurgents. I for one think the media misses the point every single day. Problem is that if you rely on our media you miss the point too. At least these points presented here should mean something to you if you have read them.

Thank you for sharing the email with us. I'm sure many of us were wondering what is going on over there besides the misery that is reported.

You say that the media misses the point every single day. Can this be accidental? Is it deliberate? What? Why?

 

[gordontravels]

I'm sorry, ask the media and ask yourself. You won't find the answer anywhere else. You know Katie Couric, Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, Ms. Rhodes, Rush, Dan Rather, Sean or Michael Moore won't tell you. Even the Runaway Bride lies and steals. There is no politician you can ask a direct question of and always depend on a direct answer to your questions. It is very possible that you will NEVER know the truth in your entire lifetime. Decisions born of skepticism will rule your living days. I love it don't you? :duel

 

[Fantasea]

I'm sorry, ask the media and ask yourself. You won't find the answer anywhere else. You know Katie Couric, Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, Ms. Rhodes, Rush, Dan Rather, Sean or Michael Moore won't tell you. Even the Runaway Bride lies and steals. There is no politician you can ask a direct question of and always depend on a direct answer to your questions. It is very possible that you will NEVER know the truth in your entire lifetime. Decisions born of skepticism will rule your living days. I love it don't you? :duel

I believe that nothing, absolutely nothing happens in the world of the media that is not carefully considered and precisely orchestrated as part of the overall symphonic agenda that is being advanced.

Why do we only have one side of the coin of Iraq presented by the liberal media? I believe that they are still smarting over two Bush victories coupled with gains in both the House and Senate despite their best efforts to bury the Republicans.

The media has already commenced campaigning for the 2008 Democratic candidate, whoever that may be. They are doing it the only way they know how. Denigrate, malign, asperse, calumniate, defame, libel, scandalize, slander, tear down, traduce, vilify, and any other synonymous verbs typify the actions of the socialist-liberal-Democratic apologist media sources toward anything that is capitalist-conservative-Republican.

 

[gordontravels]

I believe that nothing, absolutely nothing happens in the world of the media that is not carefully considered and precisely orchestrated as part of the overall symphonic agenda that is being advanced.

Why do we only have one side of the coin of Iraq presented by the liberal media? I believe that they are still smarting over two Bush victories coupled with gains in both the House and Senate despite their best efforts to bury the Republicans.

The media has already commenced campaigning for the 2008 Democratic candidate, whoever that may be. They are doing it the only way they know how. Denigrate, malign, asperse, calumniate, defame, libel, scandalize, slander, tear down, traduce, vilify, and any other synonymous verbs typify the actions of the socialist-liberal-Democratic apologist media sources toward anything that is capitalist-conservative-Republican.

Well in only a friendly manner I have ageement and disagreement. So what's new right?

First: No. Although I can agree with the "carefully considered and precisely orcestrated" comment I use Dan Rather and CBS news as my example. Even a car needs the occasional tune-up or maintenance. For a world-wide organization to allow a liberal bias to exist for such a long time until there is the opportunity for a producer and anchor to skip the vetting process, if there was one, and put something on the air as they did shows that careful and precise are out the window. It is a mindset and is not only condoned unless caught but actually allowed. With the firings and resignation of Rather himself, I don't think orcestrated fits.

Second: As to the media campaigning for the candidates - NBC's Matt Lauer and Campbell Brown in reporting the start of the campaign finance trial of the Hillary Clinton fund raising head have already pronounced her completely innocent of any complicity according to them because no "evidence" other than mis-reported funds has been found. Please, substitute Tom Delay for Hillary Clinton and you could do the same story because, unlike Hillary Clinton's campaign which has actual charges and a trial; Tom Delay has no charges and no trial on the horizon along with other Democrat and Republican Senators and Congressmen that did exactly the same thing as he did. The real difference between Tom Delay and Hillary Clinton's campaign is that his figure in dispute is $1,500.00 and her's is $800,000.00. More zeros.

For those that don't see this obvious bias in the media both on the left and right and proclaim "I don't care", I can see them sitting on the freeway waiting for a two due to lack of "care". :duel

 

[Fantasea]

Well in only a friendly manner I have ageement and disagreement. So what's new right?

First: No. Although I can agree with the "carefully considered and precisely orcestrated" comment I use Dan Rather and CBS news as my example. Even a car needs the occasional tune-up or maintenance. For a world-wide organization to allow a liberal bias to exist for such a long time until there is the opportunity for a producer and anchor to skip the vetting process, if there was one, and put something on the air as they did shows that careful and precise are out the window. It is a mindset and is not only condoned unless caught but actually allowed. With the firings and resignation of Rather himself, I don't think orcestrated fits.

I do not believe that Rather and his staff operated in a vacuum at CBS. The corporate hierarchy, at levels well beyond Dan Rather is fully plugged in to all of the major stories to ensure that there is no conflict in the presentation of an ongoing story when it is being followed and reported by more than one production group. The story line must be consistent; hence orchestrated from a senior level.

The hierarchy was, indeed, plugged in to the Bush/Rather situation. Remember that this story was in hand for months, being held at the ready, to be released at the most propitious time; close enough to the election that the RNC wouldn't have sufficient time to mount a defense. Even if the hierarchy was not paying close attention, initially, the very first telecast brought thousands of calls and emails to CBS calling attention to the fact that, during the era concerned, the military did not possess typewriters capable of producing the proportional text and superscript characters that were on the "documents" shown.

Then the CBS public relations folks released that ridiculous statement that, even if the documents were not genuine, the story they were intended to support was true. This bit of hilarity was cooked up by the top level corporate attorneys who were tasked with finding some justification for Rather's actions. These things don't happen without top level corporate involvement.

Instead of 'fessing up' at that point, they circled the wagons around Rather and only gave him up when the public protests got too hot.

The other media sources do not operate any differently. The all have agendas and they flog them as hard as they can.

 

[gordontravels]

I'm sorry but Dan Rather was the Head of Television News and Editor in Chief of the CBS Evening News. He was quite capable of putting forth any story he deemed fit to air without having vetment from his CEO or any other officer in CBS. He had been in charge of the Evening News for over 20 years. His producer was a long time employee and someone he had worked with on stories for years. He knew the story and knew the implications of when "he" decided to run it. He was in charge.

Is CBS as an organization responsible? Of course. But to think that the likes of Dan Rather is "watched" by the higher ups is to see it maybe how it now is, not how it was then. :duel

 

[Fantasea]

I'm sorry but Dan Rather was the Head of Television News and Editor in Chief of the CBS Evening News. He was quite capable of putting forth any story he deemed fit to air without having vetment from his CEO or any other officer in CBS. He had been in charge of the Evening News for over 20 years. His producer was a long time employee and someone he had worked with on stories for years. He knew the story and knew the implications of when "he" decided to run it. He was in charge.

No need to express sorrow. However, anyone who thinks that Dan Rather didn't get his marching orders from above is sadly mistaken. Perhaps sadness would be a more appropriate emotion than sorrow.

Is CBS as an organization responsible? Of course. But to think that the likes of Dan Rather is "watched" by the higher ups is to see it maybe how it now is, not how it was then.

Do I understand you to be saying that CBS locked the barn door after the horse was stolen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way it reads to me.

This is an excerpt from a 1/10/05 release on CBS.com. The bolded items convince me of the correctness of my statement that Rather did not have the final say in the matter.

CBS) Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush’s National Guard service.

The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.

“We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy,” said CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves.

The panel said a "myopic zeal" to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.

The report said at least four factors that some observers described as a journalistic “Perfect Storm” had contributed to the decision to broadcast a piece that was seriously flawed.

"The combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network’s news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles," the report said.

For the release to include the words "great deference" confirms that somebody higher up allowed himself to be talked into letting Rather run with the story.

No doubt this release was well massaged by the corporate legal team after the public relations team composed it and before it was disseminated.

 

[gordontravels]

It was also admitted by CBS that this particular story had not made their complete vetting process and that many stories didn't. Even if you have a supervisor, when the Head of CBS News (Rather) who is also the Editor in Chief decides to run a story, no matter how important, it is entirely possible that supervision or ownership knew nothing about the story or it's impact until it actually ran. This could be especially true of a man such as Rather who, at the least, had it in for President Bush and would have gone to great lengths to run a story like the one under discussion.

I've worked for a number of news organizations and for the most part, the higher ups don't know unless they ask or are told. With profit and loss to worry about they do let those whom they are comfortable with and, in charge of, run with the ball just as any coach would. Twenty years of Dan Rather at the helm and the number of stories done left him and his producer to do the vetting and presentation and more than likely it bypassed anyone else until the intial story ran and then, it was too late. :duel