Re: On tomorrow's coronation...

RichL wrote:

And there are examples of major news organizations attacking the Bush
administration when they didn't have solid grounds to do so, the
famous 60 Minutes story on Bush's reserve service where they relied
on a document that they knew was suspect and then lied about what
they had done being a prime example. In that case a producer who had
a reputation as an advocacy journalist (i.e. one for whom a cause
takes priority over impartial reporting) lost her job because she
violated CBS's usual procedures for confirming a story, she went with
what she wanted to be true rather than something that was backed up
by solid evidence.

Hmmm....

She stretched the truth. She got fired.

Hardly, among other things they flat-out lied about the document having been
examined and vouched for by experts, that turned out to be fiction. When
actual experts were finally called in they either said the document was
suspicious or in some cases said they would testify in court that it was a
forgery. If memory serves they also neglected to report all of what some
people had told them, using only the parts that supported their story, as
well as how the document came into their possession. They also ignored
standard procedure on confirming stories. The commission CBS set up to
investigate the circumstances said the responsible parties went way beyond
just stretching the truth.

This seems to detract from your thesis, doesn't it? If this sort of
thing were par for the course, don't you think it's unlikely that she
would have been fired for it?

How often does such a case blow up in their faces and embarrass them to that
extent? There might have been demotions or lost promotions if this had
involved some county sanitation commissioner, but the sort of publicity they
were hit with when the forged document was revealed meant heads had to roll.
Hell, some folks thought the whole thing was a Karl Rove plot to embarrass
the press and ensure Bush's election, it was that damaging.


.