September 30, 2004
INDC Interviews the CBS Evening News
Posted by Bill
*** Exclusive ***
Yesterday I interviewed several CBS News employees about their controversial story highlighting the possibility of a draft reinstatement. I spoke with Richard Schlesinger, the story's reporter, Sandra Genelius, a CBS Spokeswoman, and Linda Karas, the producer of the piece.
First I spoke with Mr. Schlesinger, who was eager to talk to me about the motivation and issue that drove the story. He expressed a firm belief that they "played it straight."
INDC: "First of all, what motivated CBS News to run this story?"
Schlesinger: "The point of the piece was taking look at issues through the eyes of people who feel that those issues are the most important ... in the campaign. People who are vitally concerned. We've done many of these stories on many topics. I did another one around affordable housing ... and minimum wage, for example."
Schlesinger: "No, it was an issue because it was out there. There are issues that we choose to do stories on ... I specifically said in the story, 'both candidates have said they would not support a reinstatement of the draft.'"
INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."
Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it's gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there's any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there's going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."
INDC: "Where did you get the e-mails? Were they sent to you?"
Schlesinger: "A friend of mine got the e-mails and forwarded them to me."
INDC: "Ok, another complaint regards the testimony from Beverly Cocco. Some people are pointing out that she's a chapter president for an advocacy group called People Against the Draft, that seems to have a clearly anti-war position. How did you choose her?"
Schlesinger: "Long story short, she's a Republican. When we put the story together, I went looking for a Republican. We worked backwards from the e-mail, that's how we found her. She told me that she was going to vote for Bush, though she said she may flip-flop."
Mr. Schlesinger again emphasized that the non-partisan focus of the story didn't rely on the veracity of the e-mails, because it was intended to profile the personal viewpoint of someone concerned with the draft issue. He seemed eager to answer more questions, but had to end the interview due to previous obligations. He referred me to Sandra Genelius, a CBS Spokesperson with whom I spoke shortly thereafter.
INDC: "Ok, as you may know, the recent draft story has been getting heavily criticized on the internet. What was your motivation to run the story?"
Genelius: "The story was about one of the issues that people are concerned about. The idea of the series is to look at some of the campaign issues that people are concerned about. We've run more than 20 stories like this on a variety of issues."
INDC: "How did you decide to focus on Ms. Cocco? Was it because she was a Republican?"
Genelius: "No. She she's a one issue voter and she stated that she was undecided. (Note: According to Mr. Schlesinger and Ms. Karas, they were interested in featuring a Republican. As a spokeperson that wasn't responsible for building the piece, it's very possible that Ms. Genelius wasn't aware of this information -- Ed)
INDC: "There's been some criticism that CBS didn't reveal her affiliation with a politically active organization ..."
Genelius: "We very clearly stated that both candidates would not support a reinstatement of the draft. Obviously the mechanisms are in place, but both candidates have said they would not support it."
INDC: "Regarding the mechanisms; why did you focus on the Selective Service's capability for reinstating the draft, but not also disclose the explicit statement on their web site that no draft was impending?"
Genelius: "We were trying to cover where the candidates stand and that is where we were going with that piece."
At this point, Ms. Genelius refused further cooperation with the interview.
To round out CBS's perspective on the story, I then spoke to Linda Karas, the CBS News Producer who oversaw the creation of the segment.
INDC: "Why did you choose the story?"
Karas: "It's an issue that voters are talking about."
INDC: "Ok, the e-mails in the story have been criticized because they've been debunked online for some time, why did you use them?"
Karas: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It's a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it's just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."
INDC: "But what about Ms. Cocco? What about her affiliation with this group, People Against the Draft, which has an explicit goal of enacting a 'peaceful, rational foreign policy' that wants to bring U.S. troops out of Iraq?"
Karas: "I know that she's affiliated with the group, and what her views are on the draft, and that's what I was interested in. I was looking for a character that has a personal story that might be affected by the issue. And to be honest, I was looking for a Republican. I e-mailed several groups that deal with this issue, and she was the woman who responded that fit the profile and was the most interesting voice, because this is a woman with two sons ... and she is concerned about the issue. If I had some rampant leftist on there, what would you say?"
She made a good point. Cocco identified herself as a Republican with no history of partisan Democratic activism, but what about her affiliation with People Against the Draft? From their web site:
Official US policy now calls for waging "pre-emptive war" and effecting "regime change" wherever threats to American power and security are perceived (National Security Strategy of the U.S.A., Sept. 2002). Any new war -- with or without an escalation of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- would require many thousands of new soldiers. No President will tolerate an inability to wage war as and where he sees fit.
It's not hard to connect the dots. The logic of current US foreign policy, which is globally aggressive, requires more "boots on the ground." Enlistment is barely sufficient to maintain current troop levels. Only draftees can fill the gap.
Using PAD's logic, it's also not "hard to connect the dots" about which presidential candidate would be more likely to conduct a more "aggressive" foreign policy and engage in pre-emption. Then again, PAD also presents the following position that's explicitly negative about Kerry:
Will it make any difference if the Democrats win in November?
Draw your own conclusions.
In my interview, Ms. Karas also repeatedly pointed out that in the story, CBS "disclosed that both candidates have said that they themselves would not support the (draft) Bills" and that CBS actually ran "sound of George Bush saying that he does not support the draft." This is all true; but CBS also aired the following narration from Schlesinger immediately after President Bush's statement denying the possibility of a draft:
"Beverly's not buying it. She's a Republican, but she's also a single issue voter."
Earlier in the segment, Beverly Cocco also says the following:
"I go to bed every night and I pray, and I actually get sick to my stomach. I'm very worried. I'm scared. I'm absolutely scared. I'm petrified."
And both of these statements offer a distinct contrast to the tone of her letter to the editor of the Northeast Times that was written just 20 days ago:
I asked the senator about the prospect of a draft in the future. He was adamant that there will be no draft and eloquently explained to everyone why it was important that we finish up in Iraq, what our future plans are, and why there will be no draft or any need for one. We found Sen. Specter very knowledgeable and want to thank him for addressing and explaining this very complicated and troubling issue.
The letter doesn't completely invalidate Ms. Cocco's subsequent statements, but it certainly questions their tone, and raises larger questions about CBS's implicit and dramatic cautionary tale.
Karas: "All the story was trying to do was present an issue. Ms. Cocco is on record as a Bush supporter, and I thought the story was fair."
Ms. Karas and I then proceeded to have a frank conversation about the merits of the blogosphere, the motivations for her story and what motivates bloggers and other critics to question the MSM. To be honest, she raised some valid points about the relentless nature of outside criticism; I have to agree with her paraphrased opinion that given the subjective nature of news reporting, some individuals will always be dissatisfied with the media's work. But I also adamantly communicated the indisputable factors that separate this story from more subjective interpretations of typical fare:
1. The story was aired almost immediately following recent Kerry-Edwards talking points that were expressly designed to elicit unrealistic fear of a draft reinstatement for political purposes.
2. The story failed to disclose Ms. Cocco's political activism.
3. Even if the veracity of the e-mails wasn't central to the narrative of the segment, it was surely egregiously irresponsible to report their existence without disclosing their fundamental inaccuracy.
4. The use of inaccurate supporting material and the selective use of highly relevant facts mirrored many of the exact flaws that crippled the recent 60 Minutes story about George Bush's National Guard service.
Ms. Karas unilaterally agreed to disagree about the importance of these points.
Truth be told, none of my conversations with the CBS News employees led me to believe that any of them had any overt, conscious partisan malice, and I don't regard this incident with quite the same severity that's reserved for the National Guard story. But I also think that political bias and motivations can be internalized, and that there exists another form of prevalent bias in the media, especially in TV production: the need for tension in the story. Even if we were to remove the larger partisan implications of timing involved with raising the draft issue, CBS was certainly motivated by the need to create dynamic tension between the worries and beliefs of an "everyday" mother of two potentially draft-eligible sons and the contrary public positions of John Kerry and George W. Bush. Without the tension, without the worry and without the conflict, there's no story.
That being said, I'll leave the final conclusions about CBS's motive to you. What is beyond question is that CBS failed to achieve common journalistic standards by failing to disclose Ms. Cocco's position and activism, failing to disclose the Selective Service's explicit statement denying the impending possibility of the draft and failing to disclose that the circulated e-mails in the story contained false and misleading information.
These omissions - along with the story's questionable timing and dramatic tone - combine to create a blatantly misleading piece.
(Thanks to Jeff Goldstein for his editing help)
UPDATE: Jeff adds his perspective.
UPDATE: The NY Post draws some harsher conclusions.
Posted by Bill at September 30, 2004 12:18 AM | TrackBack (99)
Fantastic original reporting in a timely manner. You have once again blown me away.
Posted by: Thad O at September 30, 2004 12:49 AM
I am amazed by the whopper of a lie that Schlesinger uttered when he said that this time around men and women would be drafted. There is no statutory authority that makes women even register, much less make them eligible, for the draft.
Posted by: ts at September 30, 2004 12:57 AM
Great job on reporting.
Check out this post by Beldar. Has some interesting details about the Cocco women.It will add some background to the women in the story.
Posted by: Kathy at September 30, 2004 12:58 AM
"No, it was an issue because it was out there."
"The story was about one of the issues that people are concerned about."
"It’s an issue that voters are talking about."
Not that there was any reality to the story, in the slightest (outside of Democratic attempts to get conscription started again). They're using the 'it was out there' excuse to report internet hoaxes as serious news?
What's next, 'Nigerian Ministerial Woes'?
What this seems to boil down to is that it doesn't matter if the basis story is true, as long as it hurts Bush it airs. The bias is so deeply internalized as to be the status quo.
Posted by: Noah D at September 30, 2004 12:58 AM
I toughen you, like a baby toughens a nipple.
Posted by: Jeff G at September 30, 2004 01:05 AM
""The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point."
In other words, the emails are "fake, but accurate." Sheesh.
Posted by: Yehudit at September 30, 2004 01:06 AM
I trust you also saw her letter on this page where she says that Arlen Specter's office told her the bills were a "secret".
Jeff: To a diamond hardness?
Posted by: Angie Schultz at September 30, 2004 01:10 AM
So, if there is an urban legend floating around that has people riled up, CBS News will report on it. Great.
Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 30, 2004 01:14 AM
Anyone out there want to back me in supporting Bill and Jeff in '08 to combat the Hildabeast?
Once again, GREAT JOB!
Posted by: El Jefe at September 30, 2004 01:17 AM
I guess next they'll be doing an expose on Roswell and the fact that "people are worried" that aliens have landed. I mean -- "it's out there." (No pun intended.)
Of course, one (FACTUAL) sentence stating, "Although this concern has been thoroughly debunked..." kinda shoots the story in the foot out of the starting gate (to mix my metaphors).
Posted by: cj at September 30, 2004 01:21 AM
If we discount intentional malice then we're left with mediocrity and incompetence.
The difference between CBS' and your report Bill is that you're willing to include the telling details. A few words of clarification totally changes the story, strengthens it, and makes it more edifying for everyone concerned.
I realize that a half hour newscast with commercials leaves 20 minutes to cover the day's news; precious little time granted but c'mon...
Schlesinger could just as easily have said in his report, "Beverly's not buying it, she's a Republican but she's also a single issue voter [that has become so alarmed that she has joined a group calling itself 'People Against The Draft'].
That would add maybe 1 second to his script and draw a more vivid picture.
Why not call the emails groundless hoaxes that never the less have frightened people? That's true. Why not just tell the truth?
It's the obvious lacunae that make people on both the Left and Right suspicious of network news. It would be so much more interesting and worthwhile that I might actually start watching again.
Posted by: JDB at September 30, 2004 01:25 AM
If CBS's main motive is to get out the truth, and they know of a lot of voters, Republican or otherwise, who are scared of a draft based on false or sexed-up information, isn't it their job to debunk the myth rather than cover the "concerns?" I mean, sheesh, it's like, "Hrm...here are a couple of unsubstantiated and debunked emails that are causing people to panic. Maybe we should...COVER THE FEAR!"
Does CBS listen to its fact-checkers? Shoot, do they even HAVE such a department? If not, I need a job...
Posted by: Chadster at September 30, 2004 01:34 AM
Jeff G helped edit yet there is no mention of rock hard nipples until the comments?
Posted by: Matt Moore at September 30, 2004 01:39 AM
Good on ya, Bill. Fine piece of work.
The links at the "People Against The Draft" website tell a tale by including the likes of A.N.S.W.E.R. and Not In Our Name. There doesn't seem to be much that's "Republican" about the place.
Also, here's a thread that raises questions about who Beverly Cocco spends her time talking to.
Posted by: Lastango at September 30, 2004 01:50 AM
Does no one wonder about the mental status of a woman who lays awake at night petrified of a draft? CBS certainly can pick 'em. This one is no better than the rancher in Texas.
Posted by: George C at September 30, 2004 01:52 AM
I eagerly await CBS's next gripping story about the concerned voters who have joined the 'People Against Finding Razor Sharp Hooks Dangling From Your Car Door Handle After Parking At Lover's Lane'.
I know that's *my* hot-button issue!
Posted by: Cliff S. at September 30, 2004 02:01 AM
You know, it is absolutely hilarious that CBS's reporter would say this.
"The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece,.."
"We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."
What a bunch of goofballs. I just can't get enough of this.
Posted by: Bob N at September 30, 2004 02:02 AM
- Why doesn't CBS just discard all the denial and change its akronym to DNB for "Democratic National Broadcasting" network and be done with it...
Posted by: Hunter at September 30, 2004 02:04 AM
Great news report Bill. Very interesting to see how a bad news story can come about. In this case it appears that CBS has done the usual mass-media trick of amplifying and making worse a worry that is out there. Local news stations are notorious for this - how many times have you heard a scare soundbite like "Serial killers, is one in your neighborhood? News at 11:00.". Yes, if CBS News was a true news organization they wouldn't resort to such cheap emotion manipulations, but then, we know they aren't a serious news organization anymore. Regardless of this main motivation I agree with the sentiments of most people here that an (un?)concious desire to make the Bush government look bad played a big part in selecting this story to begin with. Certainly there is no denying that the editing makes Bush look bad and Kerry look better on this issue.
Posted by: Phil T at September 30, 2004 02:12 AM
Bill, I would like to arrange the purchase of this mind domination device you possess in order to get these interviews with the people involved in all these stories. But if you insist on holding out on me, then I will have to send my potent ninja force to seize this technology for my own.
In the meantime, excellent job as usual doing the impossible.
Posted by: Elric at September 30, 2004 02:13 AM
The idea that any Republican would have anything to do with a blatantly LLL group like this make me highly suspicious. At the very least I'd want to see some evidence of Ms. Cocco's claimed GOP past since we have ample evidence of her current alignment with people who are for all means and purposes modern Communists.
Posted by: Eric Pobirs at September 30, 2004 02:20 AM
If you're doing a story based on reaction to a hoax, isn't it imperative to approach the story as such? CBS really needs to get some perspective on this sort of first semester jorunalism issue.
Posted by: Eric Pobirs at September 30, 2004 02:25 AM
"The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece."
You know a lot of people out there are afraid of alien abductions with anal probes too. The story's out there CBS...
Posted by: Mr Vee at September 30, 2004 02:25 AM
Am just an Iraqi fellow, and this is my blog http://Iraqi4ever.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ferid at September 30, 2004 03:29 AM
How did Democratic Party sponsorship of the draft bill(s) not come up in the interview? I thought that was the most outrageous part of the whole "Bush will draft" bullsh*t. Did I miss something?
Posted by: mikem at September 30, 2004 03:39 AM
One thing I do NOT understand is this fear based on the singular option of a draft to increase force levels.
Why the panic about a draft when Congress hasn't even increased current force levels? Makes dramatic infotainment that passes for news today.
That's the question I would ask. Why feed the panic over a draft instead of explaining the volunteer force could be increased without the draft?
Posted by: Tim at September 30, 2004 03:42 AM
see-BS is so Orwellian. I doubt if the communists could top them...
In my interview, Ms. Karas also repeatedly pointed out that in the story, CBS "disclosed that both candidates have said that they themselves would not support the (draft) Bills" and that CBS actually ran "sound of George Bush saying that he does not support the draft.” This is all true; but CBS also aired the following narration from Schlesinger immediately after President Bush's statement against the possibility of a draft:
“Beverly’s not buying it. She’s a Republican, but she’s also a single issue voter.”
So, according to Ms. Karas, the producer, now that the see-BS story showed a clip of President Bush steadfastly rejecting the idea of a draft, CBS has a license to twist the story and put "truth" behind these words. That is, calling President Bush a liar (thru this Mrs Cocco person). Imagine this: even a Republican voter, so wholesome and all, doesn't believe Bush. And she will vote for Kerry (well, I think the word was "flip-flop").
This is so 1984-like. I can't believe we are seeing it from CBS.
Posted by: blade at September 30, 2004 04:09 AM
It's the seeing of it that's so surprising. Not the happening. The seeing. What's amazing is that people like Bill do such needed work, for little or no remuneration, to pull the curtain ever so slightly back.
The wizard is buck naked!
Good on ya, Bill.
Posted by: Birkel at September 30, 2004 04:38 AM
The scaremongering Draft email is essentially an old-fashioned chain letter. Do reputable, professional news organizations do feature stories derived from chain letters, without even noting whether they are based in fact? Or do they only do it during election season when it helps their candidate?
Posted by: lyle at September 30, 2004 05:54 AM
So let me understand this:
There's this bogus story about George Bush planning to reinstate the draft out there.
Some people - mostly moonbats with tinfoil hats who, by the way, despise the War against Islamofascism - claim to "buy" the story.
So, of course, a "reputable" "News" organization does a story on the latter & dresses them up to look reasonable, while ignoring the underlying facts ... which are that there are no plans to reinstate the drafts (and the stars of their piece are MOONBATS!!!!!).
And it does this just a day or so after their preferred candidate trots the "Draft reinstatement" story out into the public consciousness.
And all of this is the result of neutral, unbiased "news" judgment.
Um, See-BS ... do you really think we're that stupid?
Posted by: BradDad at September 30, 2004 06:50 AM
Bill, this is GREAT work. There's lots of fairly inflammatory stuff ricocheting around the blogosphere about Ms. Cocco right now, and I caution folks not to necessarily conflate "People Against the Draft" with "Parents Against the Draft" (the former of which may have some very unsavory ties that the latter may not necessarily share, despite the former listing Ms. Cocco as their "affiliate" on their website).
Still, whatever her political stripe, Ms. Cocco was no mere soccer-mom, and Bill's got the admission from the horse's (donkey's?) mouth that CBS News knew that when it ran its broadcast. That admission against interest entirely defeats any possibility of CBS News claiming another "good faith mistake" in failing to provide critical context for its sources/interviewees. Bravo, sir, bravo!
My own pajama-clad checking into Ms. Cocco suggests that she's been riding this issue via exchange of letters to the editor with Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-PA and Arlen Specter's opponent this Nov. 2) since June-July, and personally quizzed Sen. Specter about it in August.
Posted by: Beldar at September 30, 2004 07:07 AM
I find this story more telling of internal bias than the 'Rathergate' situation. The later has so many things wrong with it that it is difficult to draw any solid conclusion except that CBS News messed up big time.
Posted by: Michael at September 30, 2004 07:22 AM
Great job Bill.
Like you, I'm not buying the CBS line that "an issue that people are concerned about" is grounds for a story when the story doesn't then proceed to make a big deal about the fake email and her activism and the statement from Selective Service. Nice try. This is Oprah journalism:
Screw that. If there is anything we do not need, it's more focusing on individuals and their damn feelings.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at September 30, 2004 07:31 AM
Posted by: Brett at September 30, 2004 07:49 AM
I don't buy their protestations of innocence, and I think you're entirely too charitable towards them. The story was poorly reported, edited in a way to give an impression contrary to the facts, and entirely too convenient for its giving support to a DNC talking point.
CBS is made up of people who are either habitual liars or so wrapped up in their own separate realities they have no idea how out of touch they are. Either option doesn't make for good reporting.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at September 30, 2004 08:03 AM
Bingo, Bill! Keep Interviewing.
Most struck by the import of your close - Omissions and Timing.
Sins of omissions are still sins, none the less, and require corrective response. Malicious intent or no, the result is still another smear on Bush, that parades as news.
As to timing, this newest smear from the Evil Black Eye is done while Thornberg is ostensibly gearing up for an internally commissioned “investigation” of Dan and Rathergate? (This investigation was created by Summer Redstone, the new avid Bush backer at Viacom that, I believe, was the former Campaign Manager of DEM Presidential Candidate, Senator Ed Muskie, oh, back around the time that “Lurch the Lefty” was parlez a vous’en with the NV Commies dans a Paris, before Hanoi Jane arrived for more of same. That’s several Nuances for you.)
Great form from Dan though! Could he be baiting the bolgworld now to boost his viewers/overnights to halt the slide, or – is he just as desperate as Kerry & Co., these days?
Former Attorney General Thornberg should be your next interview, Bill. Why not solicit his reaction to these new sins and ask if he intends now to broaden his review, considering the continued harm done to Bush here as well?
Why? Because in the production of both bogus reports, their timing, and sins of commission and omission play central roles, and establish a consistent pattern of obvious co-operation that furthers the aims and attempts of the DNC, while hurting Bush. Far more than “mere mistakes”.
His response, if you receive one, should be telling indeed. Perhaps you (we) will be able to discern, before the election, just how thorough this investigation will truly be.
Should it prove be a pre-ordained sham as well, then CBS, with its plummeting ratings, is on its continued way to becoming irrelevant!. “Hung by their own rope”, as cowboy Dan might say. Bully for them!
As for me - my profound hope is to read any hour, or day, your post announcing the formal report form the Texas Rangers back to the TX Attorney General (as requested today at the behest of Congressional Republicans) recommending a full criminal investigation (and possible formal charges ?) into all parties involved with the “manufacture, transmission and presentation”
That may just give the "usual suspects" like Dan, MacCauliffe, Redstone, Thornberg(?), and many others (Kerry) a really tight one, and, hopefully start to put an immediate damper on the “biased biz as usual” at the CBS Elitist Views, er, Evening News, and across the LLM.
If so, perhaps this will count as some small compensation for the work you provide for the benefit of all, and allow us to focus on other relevant pressing issues - like impending voter fraud attempts, electioneering, or, alien abductors w/ anal probes, the whereabouts of D. B. Cooper, etc.
We are living in Interesting Times, ain’t life Great? As Dan sez, “Courage”!
Thanks from The Goat.
Posted by: The Goat at September 30, 2004 08:08 AM
Exelente Bill. Gracias. If Pulitzers were given to bloggers, you certainly would have my vote.
Posted by: Val Prieto at September 30, 2004 08:16 AM
NBC did a story Weds night on the same topic, it focused on a student who at the end of the piece said he thought the draft story was a hoax, bit different from CBS's take.
Posted by: Jonah Johansen at September 30, 2004 08:21 AM
Bill- nice job!
Tim- Precisely. Congress could raise the manpower authorization if they wanted to. The catch is they would also have to authorize the increased funding associated with that. That's always a political hot potato. As far as the draft talk- it's a scare tactic being used to intimidate the younger voters. That's why it's out there.
If only See-BS would spend as much time investigating voter fraud as they do on fake documents and hoax e-mails.
Posted by: Bucky Katt at September 30, 2004 08:22 AM
CBS and in particular Dan Rather has been and continues to promote a very liberal agenda and wraps it all into what they term "news programs". If you don't agree with the approach CBS has taken with the strong bias in its "reporting", send e-mails and letters to CBS that you will not watch their "news programs" (it won't be long before all the people reporting on 60 Minutes move on to the next life given their highly advanced years) and you will boycott their advertisers. Let the prominent advertisers know about your displeasure with the way CBS and Viacom (Sumner Redstone is VERY liberal and very anti-Bush) distort the news with lies and fake documents. They will get the message when it hits their ratings and thus the bottom line.
Posted by: Kevin Maher at September 30, 2004 08:29 AM
I watch nothing on C-BS. Nothing. Not just the news, nothing. Until more people outright abandon C-BS, expect nothing to change.
Posted by: Joe R. the Unabrewer at September 30, 2004 08:34 AM
Rathergate is is important cause its criminal, this one is important because, as someone else pointed out, it completely illustrates not just bias, but that they completely over the edge. They have drunk the Kool-aid, there is no reality just pure relativism. This allows there bias to go straight off into fantasyland.
I think its important to note that these guys probably believe everything they said. To them this peice was about the "human drama". Its about how these things made people feel not whether they were valid.
They don't see it as a hatchet job because they were just trying to expose a point of view ( of course it also their point of view, what a surprise ).
They have Kool-aid in the watercooler and lotuses in the snackroom.
Posted by: ctob at September 30, 2004 08:58 AM
Is there any actual evidence that "people are concerned" about a reinstatement of the draft? I haven't seen any polls that suggest this is a big fear or at least was a big fear before the DNC and CBS started pushing the idea.
This is really looking like coordination with the Democratic message. Are there any examples of CBS doing a similar story that tracked the Republican message?
Posted by: Shannon Love at September 30, 2004 09:19 AM
It is interesting that the MSM rarely makes a mistake that reflects poorly on Democrats; it seems all of their mistakes, errors, and such always tilt against Republicans. What a coincidence...
It is interesting how CBS draws the conclusion that this is an issue of concern based upon one person's opinion.
As for the justification for this story, I suppose then that CBS would be justified in interviewing one person who is afraid of an alien invasion, on the basis that the particular rumor is out there and thus is an issue that people are concerned about.
Posted by: Another Thought at September 30, 2004 09:32 AM
Great reporting! Only wish you had brought up their purposeful omission of the fact that democrats are the sponsors of the only legislation that could bring back the draft. Thought that omission in the CBS reporting was very significant in underscoring their bias.
Posted by: SouthSalem at September 30, 2004 09:39 AM
Another fine job, Bill.
Posted by: Jane at September 30, 2004 09:40 AM
CBS reporting is the stuff of legend. Urban legend.
Posted by: SB at September 30, 2004 09:55 AM
So can we start a whisper-campaign against Kerry--that he'll ban Bibles, for instance--and have CBS cover the resulting panic without evaluating the truth of the rumors?
Posted by: K. at September 30, 2004 10:01 AM
I think their response illustrates what Bernard Goldberg was pointing out in his book "Bias." These people are so self-absorbed, isolated and insolated in their world that they simply cannot see their bias. They probably do think they are reporting fairly.
This, however, does not excuse them. What happens in a normal business when it discovered that a new hire,despite his good intentions, in completely incapable of doing the job? Unfortunately, CBS management views the world through the same lens. I submit to you the likelihood of these people simply reporting the facts is comparable to a blind schoolbus driver getting through the day without an accident. To quote Al Campanis, "these people lack the necessities." They cannot improve. They will not be fired. The only solution is keep exposing them until the only people who watch are those who agree with them.
CBS, the un-Fox. "Fake, but accurate. No reporting, we decide."
Posted by: Glen at September 30, 2004 10:02 AM
Next up, CBS will report on a woman who is afraid she'll wake up in a hotel bath tub, covered with ice, and she'll see a note telling her to call 911. She'll discover that one of her kidneys is missing. CBS says the truth or falsity of her fear is not relevant, it's a "news" story because "The point of the piece was taking look at issues through the eyes of people who feel that those issues are the most important."
Posted by: Rosemarie at September 30, 2004 10:04 AM
Well, a lot of people are talking about Unfit for Command, too. I guess CBS has a story all lined up about that.
What's that, you say? No?
This is all that counts for fact-based reporting at CBS now -- facts about opinions.
Posted by: DrSteve at September 30, 2004 10:07 AM
Well presented piece & interviews. There are several interesting aspects to the piece. CBS keeps talking about people worrying about the issue, but the newspepole don't really address their obligations for news presentation. Given that some people are "worried", what exactly is their obligation? From the sound of it they act as if it is to talk to someone who is worried and to be balanced toward the candidates. OK, but what about veracity? Doesn't the truth matter? Presenting the person as if she's any old person is a misrepresentation. Once they learned that she had an agenda, they should report on that or use somebody else. Also, they are not saying who is sponsoring that legislation nor what the probabilities are for it to come to fruition (something that is relevant to the legitimacy of the worries they are reporting on).
They are caught in the mentality of presenting news in a short segment and have to leave out all kinds of information. The media used to compalin aobut that and say it was harming the news. Now a lot of them seem to be defending that and are focused on what would harm their "piece." Part of the problem is the structure of network news broadcast themselves. Most people won't watch long pieces that elaborate enough of the relevant details. Blogs are filling in those gaps. I think many newspeople are threatened and envious. Many of them probably want to do more extensive coverage and delve into things, but that won't pay the mortgage.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin at September 30, 2004 10:08 AM
I think there is a very important aspect of the CBS debacle that has been completely overlooked. For the past 30+ years, many professors in our institutions of learning have belittled the fundamental basics of core disiplines.
For example, (bear with me, I’m not a writer) I know an English PHD professor who can do many fun things with zines, semantics poetry and knows all kinds of “cool new ways” to express oneself. But he barely knows the basics of grammer and punctuation.
The reason I think this is relevant to CBS’s downfall is ...because the schools of journalism have perpetuated a similar flaw. More emphasis was put on pleasing the teacher’s point of view, (and other factors) than was placed on the technical aspects of how to be a true journalist. Rather than verifying sources and getting it right, they were instead taught how to JUSTIFY the prevaling point of view. Verification of sources was far less important than “substance”, with “substance” being defined by the teacher’s opinions on the matter at hand. Those that excelled in school, were those who were best at justifying what the teacher wanted to hear.
The bottom line is, I think that, like my English Professor friend, who couldn’t write a professional piece of correspondence to save his life- journalists trained in the last generation simply haven’t a clue on HOW to do it right.
(This is a duplicate post to one I put over at PW - but I really think this is an important factor in this discussion that has been overlooked!)
Posted by: Becky at September 30, 2004 10:20 AM
A funny part of the story is that Kerry has been telling the public that the president is secretly planning to reinstate the draft, and bashing him for it. If you go to dirtykerry.com has a page from the Kerry web site archived where Kerry supports cumpulsory service!
Posted by: davman at September 30, 2004 10:21 AM
CBS should next do a story about how the country is all freaked out over waking up in the morning in a bathtub of ice and missing body organ.....the emails are out there and people are worried.
Posted by: w at September 30, 2004 10:25 AM
INDC: GREAT JOB!
I look forward to the CBS story on waking up in a bathtub full of ice, minus your kidney.
Posted by: Persnickety at September 30, 2004 10:33 AM
Bill, you've done excellent work lately. INDC Journal is now, IMO, the best blog out there for original reporting. Keep it up!
Posted by: Farmer Joe at September 30, 2004 10:34 AM
How can they do a piece on "draft anxiety" without pointing out that the Democrat candidate has made it a campaign issue and that members of his own party have introduced legislation (or is it 2?) to reinstate the draft?
So they ignored factual information that would feed draft anxiety in favor of an urban myth... What's next? ...stories on people afraid of waking up in a tub filled with ice without their kidneys...or that poor man in Nigeria who can't get anyone in the US to put his $100000000000 in their bank account (selfish Americans).
COMING CBS Evening News Headlines: Real Women Want to Meet You! Tired of Being Bald? Natural Male Enhancement! Get the Body You Always Wanted! Draw the Pirate and Earn Cash!
Posted by: Pat Rand at September 30, 2004 10:40 AM
I particularly liked how they used "it's going along" argument for selecting the story. With this kind of attitude, I would have expected hours of SwiftVet coverage.
Posted by: J_Crater at September 30, 2004 10:43 AM
We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail >
I'ts not just "circulating", it's been outed as false, however sincere the author and forwarders were. Is it CBS's intention to spread debunked urban legend style rumors, without mentioning their false nature, because "people are talking about them"? Is CBS the station of record about how to make thousands helping Nigerian's transfer funds?
Cocco was largely responsible for the e-mail's dissemination (per her letter to the Northeastern Times), and nobody said anything about her, along with her "friends" pushing the e-mail, like it was "important information from the police" about LSD-coated mickey-mouse rub-on tatoos.
Cocco also either stupidly or with deliberate guile spread false information that Spector's office told her that the bills in congress pending about the draft were "secret".
Posted by: SarahW at September 30, 2004 10:47 AM
excellent work. you did this well. the big sin here was in omitting the PAD affiliation; this was no "everywoman" who focuses on a single issue-this was an activist with a group that has a defined political view in stark opposition to the current administration. this does not make her bad or wrong, but it does make her an entirely different breed of bird than was portrayed in the piece.
All the rest was sleazy editing for the sake of dramatic tension.
added thought experiment: reverse the tables here, and have CBS portray a single issue mom voter on abortion during a Dem administration. She's plausible, concerned and engaging--a fine interview. She's also president of her local Operation Rescue group, but that's not disclosed.
can't you just hear Oliver Wills, Kos and Atrios screaming?
Posted by: rod at September 30, 2004 10:48 AM
I'm still wondering about the "Jacob Levich" connection for Cocco's Advocacy Website?
He is listed as the domain registrant for NODRAFT.INFO and is known for his anti-right 1984ish warning screed (just google on his name). That, to me, is a prety good indication of something fishy with Cocco's intentions.
Posted by: Jonathan at September 30, 2004 10:49 AM
How about a article about Iraqi worried about being kidnapped and killed by al-Sadr's thugs? After all 200 dead bodies were found in Najaf's mosque.
Let's change Schlesinger's answer.
Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten Iraqi's all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a massacre, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s was a massacre? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."
But that information might help Bush. What is not being shown is the source of the bias, not what is being shown.
Posted by: Tim at September 30, 2004 10:56 AM
Unbelievable. I have more on this over at my blog (that nobody reads).
Kerry is the one calling for "Compulsory Volunteerism" for all high-school graduates, but Bush is the one to worry about? Oh, would you look at that, Kerry took all mention of that part of his "100 day plan" down from his website.
Posted by: Textbook Stupidity at September 30, 2004 10:58 AM
The real question here is what the heck is the news department up to. There doesn't appear to have been any attempt to fact check or provide any balance.
At the very least we have an unacceptable degree of incompetance. If a blogger can find out pertinent information, a news department researcher should be able find at least as much information.
It's time the parent corporation took extreme measures to re-establish the integrity of its news division.
Posted by: Davod at September 30, 2004 11:07 AM
If I have only one complaint on this excellent report, it's that INDC did not also ask CBS why they left out the important fact that only DEMOCRATS are supporting this idea?
Posted by: Deaconess at September 30, 2004 11:20 AM
Info-tainment, indeed. It seems the legacy media get lighter and lighter on the "info" and heavier on the "entertainment" quotient, as witnessed by your observations on the perceived need for "tension" and "conflict" to sell a story. These are the basic requirements for a work of *drama*: you create a conflict for your characters, push it to the max to create a heightened sense of tension, then resolve it. The "news" media leave off the resolution part in most cases, leaving viewers/readers in a state of heightened tension that demands to be addressed in some way. One assumes they hope we'll resolve our tension by voting or activism. In any case, viewers are being manipulated, and this is a long, long way from objective reportage. A LONG way!
Posted by: Gemma at September 30, 2004 11:32 AM
- Once this election cycle is over people will look back and marval at the remarkable restraint that the conservative press showed in the media debate.
- Contrary to the jabbering panicky left, advering that the Swiftvets claims have been "largely disproved", other than a few of the 240+ people that served with Kerry that have changed their stories, not a single instance of their claims have even been responded too, much less disproved.
- Certainly no one has come forward to claim the $100,000 offered by O'Neill to site one instance from the "Unfit for Command" book that is in error.
- On the other side Kerry to this day refuses to do that form 180 releasing the missing 31 pages from his service record. Nor has he produced his discharge papers.
- If FOX news were to do a 2 hour expose' with all of the actual prevaricating on the part of Kerry's camp, ala the CBS partisan "reports", the ballgame would be over. The Left must think themselves fortunate that the right can be counted on to show restraint, something they themselves decidedly lack.
Posted by: Hunter at September 30, 2004 11:36 AM
CBS sets a new "Gold Standard" for (uncredible) journalism: "Fake and inaccurate--but controversial."
I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I smell a Peabody!
Posted by: Eyeore at September 30, 2004 11:51 AM
Well, let's see how many liberal memes we can cover here...
First: When did the concerns of single-issue voters become so important? (Philosophical side question: How can a single-issue voter have a party affiliation? By definition, the single-issue voter's method is to vote for whichever candidate is most favorable to their single issue, no matter what party.) If single-issue voters are now critical to the election, I expect that CBS will soon be running a story on the concerns of rabid anti-abortion protestors.
Second: If the accuracy of the evidence doesn't matter provided that it "illustrates a higher truth", then consider: Another long-debunked but still circulating Internet hoax says that the Voting Rights Act is set to expire next year and that all blacks will be permanantly disfranchised and lose their right to own property unless Congress acts immediately. There are people who are deathly concerned about this, and I can easily come up with a sample of the e-mail that has been circulating. It appears that this fits all of CBS's criteria for a story. When are they going to run this?
Posted by: Cousin Dave at September 30, 2004 11:52 AM
Excellent work! I can't believe you got these CBS people to talk to you on the record.
Posted by: Cableguy at September 30, 2004 11:52 AM
What's this "record" you speak of?
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at September 30, 2004 11:54 AM
Once again, INDC Journal digs into the foundation of another story reeking of advocacy. Good work. No wonder why I read this blog daily.
A main concern of mine centers around the inaccuracies contained in the CBS piece. For example, Schlesinger states
"This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up."
Since when are women required to register with Selective Service in this country? According to the SS website, only males are required to register. Why the doomsday scenario? Did Jack Martin really make that comment?
Posted by: Barney at September 30, 2004 12:01 PM
Posted by: Jeff G at September 30, 2004 12:04 PM
It comes down to this: CBS had all the facts and new all the non-facts. They could have reported that the story was a myth, or they could have reported that the story was causing grief. Instead of informing, they perpetuated. It's yellow journalism at the highest level.
Posted by: Reggie Thornton at September 30, 2004 12:12 PM
why tosay LY?!? Cbus halp AMERCIA as trueth
Posted by: Puce at September 30, 2004 12:36 PM
"it was an issue because it was out there."
"The story was about one of the issues that people are concerned about."
"It’s an issue that voters are talking about."
Right. Like black helicopters, UFO sightings, the coming Apocalypse.
Screw these incompetent hacks. Time for bloggers to start creating their own web-based newscasts and interviews.
Posted by: lex at September 30, 2004 12:49 PM
Does the CBS report mention the two EXLUSIVELY democrat sponsored congressional bills (HR 163 and S 89)which propose to re-introduce the draft?
If not why not?
Posted by: w_boodle at September 30, 2004 12:51 PM
what CBS and the democrats know is that once a story is out there, however it is played, it sticks in the mind of the "swing" voter. The forged documents were paypack for thet swiftboat ads and that backfired on them. They are desperate to get the draft rumour out there now. The "we never said the e-mail wasn't a myth" excuse is sorry and reprehensible. Look for more of this to come guys. Especially if Bush does well tonight.
Good job BILL!!! (I would love to hear "how" the interview ended..lol)
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at September 30, 2004 12:53 PM
Great job! Thanks for the Information.
The fact that CBS ran with this story should first and foremost discredit it but definitely adds validity to the bias nature of MSM. CBS proves it believes it is superior to all by running with a rumor, at best, under the premise people wanted to hear about it. If you or I had our integrity questioned, we would not run with a "debunked" "questionable" easily "disproved" rumor; but CBS is a member of the egotistic elitist media that feels they answer to no one and are better than you or I.
Posted by: Woody at September 30, 2004 01:15 PM
Bill, just e-mailed you. Linda Vester on Fox is about to talk about bloggers finding another CBS hoax in this e-mail story. Hope you catch it!
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at September 30, 2004 01:21 PM
Great job, Bill. However, based on what we know about CBS, I'm wondering (like Eric) what their basis for calling her a Republican or Bush supporter is. Cocco's own say-so? Did they check voter registration records?
Indeed, it might also be asked why CBS wanted a Republican as the main interview subject for the piece. Concern that one's children might be drafted would not appear, on the face of it, to be a partisan matter.
Moreover, Karas says, "And to be honest, I was looking for a Republican." The emphasis is mine; what thought occurs to you when you hear some one say "to be honest?"
Posted by: Karl at September 30, 2004 01:38 PM
OK, folks, have you had enough of CBS News now?
URL http://www.boycottcbs.com/ contains a list of companies that advertise on CBS News programs. I suggest that we send e-mails and write snail-mail letters to these companies telling them that we used to use their products or considered using their products but we will never use them again until they withdrawl their support for CBS News.
CBS News and Viacom, the parent company, exist through advertising revenue. It's time to cut off their food supply.
Posted by: kevino at September 30, 2004 01:48 PM
Ankle Biters can't do real journalism. If you can't skew it left it's got no heft.
Posted by: Matthew Ryan at September 30, 2004 01:48 PM
Nice job Bill. I wished you would have asked them how they define "issue." It seems to me that since neither candidate supports a draft, there is no issue. Just because someone's worried about something doesn't mean that its an issue.
Posted by: Kramer at September 30, 2004 02:03 PM
Why don't they present someone who is equally un-afraid of the draft being reinstated. Not enough tension i suppose.
Posted by: Byte me at September 30, 2004 02:28 PM
The interview is great -- and the comments are perhaps even better. (I cribbed one for my site.) The Pajamasphere strikes again!
Posted by: Scott Lawton at September 30, 2004 02:31 PM
The truth is absolutely irrelevant?
She actually said, "the truth [is] absolutely irrelevant"?
CBS's old line was "fake but true." At least that formulation shows some respect for the importance of truth. But the new CBS formulation -- the truth is irrelevant -- is a radical new view of journalism. God help us.
Posted by: John S at September 30, 2004 02:40 PM
Is CBS News now going to be doing stories on every Internet hoax e-mail out there that gets people stirred up? What a weird standard for news...
Posted by: steve at September 30, 2004 02:56 PM
CBS can logically claim that the Draft Issue is a legitimate story given the potential for military build up and especially with Charlie Rangel pushing it on several cable news shows.
Where they fell down is in not concluding that for all the reasons stated above, there was virtually no chance of the draft being reinstituted by either candidate. Instead they chose to play on fear and insecurity which just happens to help JFKerry.
If in fact CBS chooses its stories based on non-partisan factors, then at least some should break in favor of Bush/Republicans. A good question for your next CBS interview (hey we've got a month, surely CBS will run another hit piece) would be -- after listing shows critical or damaging to Bush -- which shows have they done on political issues helpful to Bush/Republicans?
Any? If not, how would their editorial judgment be any different if they were actively supporting JFKerry?
Posted by: ter0 at September 30, 2004 02:57 PM
'We've done many of these stories on many topics. I did another one around affordable housing ... and minimum wage, for example."'
'We get these topics directly from highly concerned people like Joe Lockhart'
Posted by: Jack Tanner at September 30, 2004 03:17 PM
Part of the task of keeping the country secure is to not go out attacking a bunch of other countries on a perceived threat because all that will do is get those who haven't been attacked totally aware that they will likely be attacked and therefore increase the danger of attacks against us before we attack them.
In short, no one in their right mind is going to blatantly go out attacking other countries pre-emptively regularly on top of which - it takes an act of congress to do that. So, the whole follow through logic they use is faulty from the get go. Their whole argument is based on faulty idea that Pres. Bush (not congress) took us to war on his own self. And since the information provided to Bush and to congress was (apparently) faulty, you can bet your last dollar that they are going to be a bit more hesitant next time.
Posted by: Shannon Rundquist at September 30, 2004 04:15 PM
The reason CBS cant stop its addiction to yellow journalism is because they have been doing it for so many years.(ie:90% of journalists polled are liberals)They know exactly what they are delivering;They just dont know how to confront the immediacey of the blogosphere to discredit them.For years before the internet i used to watch 60 Minute pieces completely slanted to the left and scratch my head.. Dann Rather and CBS were allways partisian hacks and no one is going to change those stripes
Posted by: pirate at September 30, 2004 04:19 PM
Kristen Breitweiser is now in a DNC ad explaining why she supports Kerry.
Posted by: Dave at September 30, 2004 04:49 PM
According to NRO
NBC's/MSNBC's favorite "Republican" 9-11 widow, Kristen Breitweiser, is now featured in a two-minute Kerry-endorsing ad on the DNC web site.
Same tactics different network.
Posted by: Dave at September 30, 2004 04:51 PM
This strikes me as reminiscent of a previous CBS broadcast by Orson Welles on October 30th, 1938. It is a piece of entertainment, nothing more. It's playing on the fears of the audience as a means of getting attention.
Whether or not it causes panic and real harm in Trenton, NJ, or elsewhere, is of no particular concern to CBS... unless they're caught at it.
Posted by: Dishman at September 30, 2004 04:54 PM
I just hit the tip jar, you deserve it for this.
Posted by: Elric at September 30, 2004 05:03 PM
What gets me is the failure to report the Real Story - that there's a huge effort to make people afraid that the draft will be reinstated. Why doesn't CBS report *that* story? If there's concern/fear out there - why on earth isn't it a legitimate story to report the fear, and debunk the source of the fear? If there was a rumor out there that was gaining widespread credence about some health plague, wouldn't the media do their best to find the truth? Of course they would. But in the political realm, there's a different standard entirely.
Posted by: SF at September 30, 2004 06:31 PM
Hume just plugged Bill's interview at the 30 minute segment FYI.
Posted by: Elric at September 30, 2004 06:33 PM
Brit Hume just mentioned this story & your blog. :)
Posted by: Lurker at September 30, 2004 06:36 PM
I have no doubt that Schlesinger thought he was "playing the story straight," but his saying so doesn't make it so. He's merely reporting the "reality" of an internet hoax, without disclosing the falsity of the premise underlying the anecdotal report of the fear, as triggered by the hoax. cBS is reinforcing and promoting irrational fear regarding a Democratic talking point during a presidential election. Their motives couldn't be clearer, regardless what they claim are their intentions.
The producer and the reporter stated that the email was irrelevent.
The producer and the reporter state that they wanted a republican to interview/report on, who was also against reinstatement of a draft.
Democratic party talking points raise the issue of draft reinstatement.
What more do you need to know? cBS "news" is operating as an adjunct of the Kerry kampaign.
Posted by: Forbes at September 30, 2004 06:41 PM
This interview was disappointing--it lost the forest for the trees. The central question that must be answered is: Why would CBS report on a woman's reaction to a spurious rumor circulating on the internet, unless it was to debunk the rumor and allay some overwrought fears? News is about the reporting of the truth, not the reporting of a woman's reaction to a fallacy.
Posted by: eliza at September 30, 2004 07:07 PM
CBS = Circulating Bogus Stories
Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 30, 2004 07:41 PM
CBS had options on how to approach the story.
The REAL issue: Discuss whether or not there's validity to the entire draft issue -- which is want people want answered, and is easily dismissed. We could then put this to bed.
Or, start with the premise that the draft lie is true and get an emotional reaction to that lie - keeping it alive and possibly damaging Bush.
I wasn't really crazy with the line of questioning above since it allowed CBS to twist the issue, thus the argument wasn't 'is there truth to the draft story'. It became, 'is there truth to this woman's reaction', in which case they can say, 'hey, our story is true.'
The fact is the draft story is false, and that SHOULD have been the thrust of the story.
But it doesn't match their agenda.
Posted by: Michael at September 30, 2004 08:09 PM
George Bush stutters and got way to p-o'd to not be hiding his deceptions. He lied and got caught. Under him, we'll see a new world war. This man scares me. He talks about freedom and the patriot act in the same sentence. If he's only scared about nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, he needs a reality check. He should be mindful of nuclear weapons in any hands - even our own! George Bush = BIG LOSER!
Posted by: Kim Ivie at September 30, 2004 11:26 PM
Once again CBS shows there is no lie it won't spread in order to defame a republican president.
Posted by: mark at October 1, 2004 10:13 AM
This is unbelievable, just as any CBS news story.
Posted by: Mickey at October 1, 2004 06:19 PM
It is getting to the point that the only great liberal out there is Bernard Goldberg. ...and it isn't any wonder that he was treated so poorly at CBS. CBS doesn't want any great liberals it only wants "Party Line" liberals.
Posted by: Tom MacMurray at October 4, 2004 04:05 PM
Hahahahaha - I so know what you mean.
Posted by: Harley Parts at October 8, 2004 03:26 AM