Thursday, September 23, 2004
CBS's Big Beady Eye
By The Erudite Redneck
Don’t let the select use of language fool you: CBS says it has “launched an investigation” into how it got duped by the Texan with the supposedly fake documents regarding the president’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Just now, I saw a crawl on MSNBC that said the venerable network has “appointed a panel of two” to lead the “investigation.”
It’s all a crock. I don’t mean that CBS isn’t looking into what happened to whom, and why – how the normal safeguards surrounding accuracy in journalism, even in TV, which at its very, very, very best is only journalism light, failed.
But the language being used is all part of a game used by people who take themselves way too seriously.
CBS does not have subpoena power, which I consider a minimum power required to “launch an investigation.”
CBS probably hasn’t invited ABC or NBC to affirm its “appointment” of a “panel” – and usually, in serious settings, someone outside an organization being “investigated” is involved to lend real credibility.
Pay attention to the words people use. The are critical to understanding motive – and more important, how important they think they, and their opponents, are.
One of the best journalism profs I ever had in college had us study news dispatches from Vietnam. He pointed out that American reporters wrote that U.S. military officials “said” this or that, and that the enemy “claimed” this or that.
Critical difference. “Said” is neutral. “Claimed” is loaded, creating doubt in the reader’s mind by conveying that the writer has doubts.
Look for it in today’s news. Newsmakers and pundits are subtler these days sometimes, but sometimes they’re not – like CBS’s clumsy self-loving use of Big Official Words to describe how it is scrambling like hell to figure out what went wrong, before what’s left of its reputation is gone in the blink of its Big Beady Eye.
END
Don’t let the select use of language fool you: CBS says it has “launched an investigation” into how it got duped by the Texan with the supposedly fake documents regarding the president’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Just now, I saw a crawl on MSNBC that said the venerable network has “appointed a panel of two” to lead the “investigation.”
It’s all a crock. I don’t mean that CBS isn’t looking into what happened to whom, and why – how the normal safeguards surrounding accuracy in journalism, even in TV, which at its very, very, very best is only journalism light, failed.
But the language being used is all part of a game used by people who take themselves way too seriously.
CBS does not have subpoena power, which I consider a minimum power required to “launch an investigation.”
CBS probably hasn’t invited ABC or NBC to affirm its “appointment” of a “panel” – and usually, in serious settings, someone outside an organization being “investigated” is involved to lend real credibility.
Pay attention to the words people use. The are critical to understanding motive – and more important, how important they think they, and their opponents, are.
One of the best journalism profs I ever had in college had us study news dispatches from Vietnam. He pointed out that American reporters wrote that U.S. military officials “said” this or that, and that the enemy “claimed” this or that.
Critical difference. “Said” is neutral. “Claimed” is loaded, creating doubt in the reader’s mind by conveying that the writer has doubts.
Look for it in today’s news. Newsmakers and pundits are subtler these days sometimes, but sometimes they’re not – like CBS’s clumsy self-loving use of Big Official Words to describe how it is scrambling like hell to figure out what went wrong, before what’s left of its reputation is gone in the blink of its Big Beady Eye.
END
Comments:
<< Home
I agree that calling this an "investigation" implies a legal proceeding, which, of course, this is not. Having Dick Thornburgh, a former attorney general, and Louis D. Boccardi, a former top executive of The Associated Press,working together on this seems odd to me.
Thornburgh's participation is questionable because of his history as part of the Nixon and the first President Bush's administrations. This seems to be a moment he's waited for and probably had dreams about. How independent and unbiased can he be when he may have had 30 years of wanting to kick Rather's tail?
Boccardi's participation makes more sense to me. He has insisted that the results of their work be made public, which is important in any ombudsman investigation of a journalist. He worked for 36 years at The A.P. before retiring last year, and was one of three outsiders who served on a committee with reporters and editors of The New York Times that investigated the repeated fabrications of a former reporter, Jayson Blair.
There's a lot at stake in this, the most important being the integrity of news gathering. A lot of people need to be held accountable and take responsibility for how this story was managed, from a professional point of view. Clearly, ethics slipped through the cracks somewhere. Someone got sloppy and/or made questionable judgments.
It shouldn't be taken lightly. The public needs to see that the profession takes this kind of thing dead serious. But the public should not be duped into thinking that this panel has anything more than advisory powers. In the worst case for Rather, he will be dismissed. In the worst case for the public, CBS will pull off a worse deception by holding this panel up as judge and jury, regardless of the findings, and then do whatever the company wanted to do in the first place.
It's a smoke and mirrors act. We need to watch what happens with this because of its potential to erode any confidence the public may have in journalism as a whole.
Thornburgh's participation is questionable because of his history as part of the Nixon and the first President Bush's administrations. This seems to be a moment he's waited for and probably had dreams about. How independent and unbiased can he be when he may have had 30 years of wanting to kick Rather's tail?
Boccardi's participation makes more sense to me. He has insisted that the results of their work be made public, which is important in any ombudsman investigation of a journalist. He worked for 36 years at The A.P. before retiring last year, and was one of three outsiders who served on a committee with reporters and editors of The New York Times that investigated the repeated fabrications of a former reporter, Jayson Blair.
There's a lot at stake in this, the most important being the integrity of news gathering. A lot of people need to be held accountable and take responsibility for how this story was managed, from a professional point of view. Clearly, ethics slipped through the cracks somewhere. Someone got sloppy and/or made questionable judgments.
It shouldn't be taken lightly. The public needs to see that the profession takes this kind of thing dead serious. But the public should not be duped into thinking that this panel has anything more than advisory powers. In the worst case for Rather, he will be dismissed. In the worst case for the public, CBS will pull off a worse deception by holding this panel up as judge and jury, regardless of the findings, and then do whatever the company wanted to do in the first place.
It's a smoke and mirrors act. We need to watch what happens with this because of its potential to erode any confidence the public may have in journalism as a whole.
I'm ducking as I write this, and hesitated to say this on a journalist's blog, but I think journalism had suffered tanking of reputation long before CBS' Big Beady Eye was blackened.
I already had little confidence in journalism. So many reporters, of both print and screen, are so blatant in their favoritism, that it embeds doubt in the veracity of their words right out of the gate. I have a few that I trust, and surprise, they're not all conservatives! :)
Trixie, perhaps Thornburgh's inclusion is precisely what ER was talking about as "someone outside an organization being “investigated” is involved to lend real credibility." Who else better than an perceived "enemy" of Rather's to show they're trying to be legit in their efforts?
As journalists I can see how it worries you that the integrity of journalism is at stake. However, in an industry that refuses to step up to the plate and have some standards of decency, I think that hallowed integrity is on life support.
I already had little confidence in journalism. So many reporters, of both print and screen, are so blatant in their favoritism, that it embeds doubt in the veracity of their words right out of the gate. I have a few that I trust, and surprise, they're not all conservatives! :)
Trixie, perhaps Thornburgh's inclusion is precisely what ER was talking about as "someone outside an organization being “investigated” is involved to lend real credibility." Who else better than an perceived "enemy" of Rather's to show they're trying to be legit in their efforts?
As journalists I can see how it worries you that the integrity of journalism is at stake. However, in an industry that refuses to step up to the plate and have some standards of decency, I think that hallowed integrity is on life support.
# posted by 
: 1:51 PM
: 1:51 PM
Truth be known, we don't really know what someone like this feline person thinks, because we have a different mentality. We came into this business with wholesome ideas and beliefs in our true meaning as a member of the media, by which news is transferred from the actual events to the folks wanting that information. Medium. Middle.
I've been involved in publications where the extreme right or the extreme left was involved in management, and the "news" writing was tainted to show that side.
But I like to be informed. I think there's a know-it-all mentality that we all have, some, like me, more than others. So we like to ask questions. We like to know what's going on.
And we'd like to be able to report it.
But the truth is regular folks don't see us as that. They can read millions of words in a newspaper, gather their information, then the only thing they remember is that we misspelled Tom Jones' name.
They also view news conferences, where journalists are always seen as antagonists. It's not always their fault.
But what most people who don't know our business don't understand is this: 90 percent of all journalists are credible, hard-working, unbiased in their reports and simply eager to get the news to the people who want it.
Things like what has happened at CBS and recently with the New York reporter who "phoned in" his stories give us all a black eye. But we're not all like that. We care about what we do, just like the accountant who spends many hours working on your taxes. He wants to get it right. If he makes a mistake, its costly, but it's not public.
But if I put the wrong person's name in a photo caption or misspell a word in a headline or put is where there should be an are, it's there for everyone to see.
And I believe that our remote-control society leads everyone else to think they can do our jobs.
There are times I wouldn't trade my job for anything. But there have been times -- like when my editor pushed me out the door to talk with the grieving mother of the teenager who was murdered in the streets or when covering a murder trial and hear police and medical experts describe the torture the victim went through before being beaten to death or writing the story about a cancer patient losing her life just weeks after my mother lost her own battle with the disease -- that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
Our jobs are to tell the truth the best we can while making it interesting, informative and educational. Our jobs are to tell stories of people, whether they be geniuses, doctors, soldiers, heroes, athletes or murderers.
Sometimes our jobs are just to be human. But sometimes, even that's unforgiveable.
I've been involved in publications where the extreme right or the extreme left was involved in management, and the "news" writing was tainted to show that side.
But I like to be informed. I think there's a know-it-all mentality that we all have, some, like me, more than others. So we like to ask questions. We like to know what's going on.
And we'd like to be able to report it.
But the truth is regular folks don't see us as that. They can read millions of words in a newspaper, gather their information, then the only thing they remember is that we misspelled Tom Jones' name.
They also view news conferences, where journalists are always seen as antagonists. It's not always their fault.
But what most people who don't know our business don't understand is this: 90 percent of all journalists are credible, hard-working, unbiased in their reports and simply eager to get the news to the people who want it.
Things like what has happened at CBS and recently with the New York reporter who "phoned in" his stories give us all a black eye. But we're not all like that. We care about what we do, just like the accountant who spends many hours working on your taxes. He wants to get it right. If he makes a mistake, its costly, but it's not public.
But if I put the wrong person's name in a photo caption or misspell a word in a headline or put is where there should be an are, it's there for everyone to see.
And I believe that our remote-control society leads everyone else to think they can do our jobs.
There are times I wouldn't trade my job for anything. But there have been times -- like when my editor pushed me out the door to talk with the grieving mother of the teenager who was murdered in the streets or when covering a murder trial and hear police and medical experts describe the torture the victim went through before being beaten to death or writing the story about a cancer patient losing her life just weeks after my mother lost her own battle with the disease -- that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
Our jobs are to tell the truth the best we can while making it interesting, informative and educational. Our jobs are to tell stories of people, whether they be geniuses, doctors, soldiers, heroes, athletes or murderers.
Sometimes our jobs are just to be human. But sometimes, even that's unforgiveable.
Teditor, I'm sorry if you took my jaded view as a personal insult. I certainly didn't mean it that way. I'm sure that there are certain areas of the country where integrity in journalism is still paramount. I’m sure you’re one that does his job as it should be done.
I’m just a medical assistant/secretary turned stay-at-home mom. I'm also a conservative in southern California. They’re both tough gigs.
I had a lot more written in my original apology, but wisdom dictates that the midnight editor take over lest I say something else to insult someone else.
Again, my apologies.
I’m just a medical assistant/secretary turned stay-at-home mom. I'm also a conservative in southern California. They’re both tough gigs.
I had a lot more written in my original apology, but wisdom dictates that the midnight editor take over lest I say something else to insult someone else.
Again, my apologies.
# posted by : 1:23 AM
: 1:23 AM
FrenziedFeline, I didn't take your comments as a personal attack. This blog is operated by a journalist, and I share that profession. Heck, we share an office. And according to your comments, it looked to me as though all journalists were lumped into one stereotype and personality.
What I had hoped to point out is that many people see us in that light, but the truth is this: That type of bias is no different than racism or sexism or any other style of human behavior where someone is looked down upon based on their color, religion, sex or the kind of work they do.
I saw it as ignorance, and I wanted to shed the light on some things and maybe open some eyes a little wider toward the work we do.
So no offense taken.
What I had hoped to point out is that many people see us in that light, but the truth is this: That type of bias is no different than racism or sexism or any other style of human behavior where someone is looked down upon based on their color, religion, sex or the kind of work they do.
I saw it as ignorance, and I wanted to shed the light on some things and maybe open some eyes a little wider toward the work we do.
So no offense taken.
Excellent, excellent points, Teditor. "The media" is no monolith. I hate being lumped into a stereoptype as much as the next person. Maybe we should call ourselves journalist-Americans. Maybe that way people would be slower to judge us as a class. (Yeah, right). And Feline: If you think all journalists, or even most journalists, are biased, guess what? You're right. I am a right-wing, gun-totin' economic liberal. There might hints of that in my newspaper column from time to time, but certainly not in news stories. The trick is to keep bald bias out of coverage. ... But the main thing that conservatives -- true conservatives -- can't stand about journalists is this: Asking questions by definition is anti-conservative. Questioning authority is not a conservative thing to do. The status quo is conservative; change is not. People mistake our challenges to authority -- especially present authority -- as being against the ones in power. Most of us truly try to follow this creed -- and I dare say even in California: "Afflict the comfortable. Comfort the afflicted." And always, always QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say that this blog is operated by a "right-wing, gun-totin' economic liberal" journalist. :-)
And MY ethnic subgroup is: "Apron-wearing, hymn-singing, personal-story-telling, unofficed Journalist-American."
This could be fun, defining our specific subgroups.
This could be fun, defining our specific subgroups.
Dearest anonymous,
I'd love to borrow your saddle sometime. Sounds like it might even be a good fit. Hope you don't mind my spurs. :-)
I'd love to borrow your saddle sometime. Sounds like it might even be a good fit. Hope you don't mind my spurs. :-)
Welp, that one stumped the ER. (sniffin' fer oats and manure). I didn't see no high horse on here.
??? I don't get it. What high horse are you referrin' to? Aww, it don't matter. If Teditor's on one, it's a dadgum two-seater -- and I'm ridin' on there with him.
??? I don't get it. What high horse are you referrin' to? Aww, it don't matter. If Teditor's on one, it's a dadgum two-seater -- and I'm ridin' on there with him.
Two seater saddle? Is that a redneck sex toy? U boys look rite nice in ur leather chaps & black hats with those spurs. Ur god's gift to menfolk at the redneck rave as u twostep ur way to butt buddy bonanza So kiss my redeye.
-DMs
-DMs
# posted by : 5:27 PM
: 5:27 PM
Oookay. The previous comment was possibly the dumbest and the most off-the-topic one I've ever read. It's at least in the top five.
No, no, no. You are confusin' us with gay rodeo. There, they have calf rapin' and steer gropin' and bareback ridin' has an entirely different meanin'. ... That's enough of that. Some nice folks read this here blog. I'd rather not scare 'em off with too many off-colorisms. So, let's not.
Yeah, I was impressed with the well-thought response from DMs. Let's see, he made reference to homosexuality unnecessarily and even tried to make fun of our folksy chatter. Nice work.
Paging Mr. Ron, Mr. MoRon.
Paging Mr. Ron, Mr. MoRon.
But, Trixie, with eloquent prose like "fuk u," he's got potential. He's got to be well read -- Hustler, Stag, etc. Hell, Larry Flynt's made millions with that type of poetry, so why not DMs?
Post a Comment
<< Home
