Does anyone else see this "retirement" as a quiet defusing of the entire "investigation"....no Rather, no problem!

Wanna bet something will be announced shortly about Mapes accepting a new post in podunk? Thus nothing needed there, and "oh, by the way" we feel the recognition by Hayward that we need to "tighten up" our checking of news stories gives him renewed acceptability!

He He

I can't stop laughing!

Duke

First things first: well done! to you and all the others who exposed Document Dan. (Powerline, Captain's Quarters and LGF come to mind.)

I seem to recall hearing rumors before the documents scandal that Dan was going after the election, in which case there has been no fall-out other than the ratings drop. Is CBS short-sighted enough to think announcing Dan's retirement is the end of the scandal?

If I recall correctly, Rather was ALWAYS going to resign next year. I don't think this has anything to do with Memogate, which is why he will still be working as an anchor.

I agree - it's a hollow "victory" at best. But it still brings a smile to my face.

Bill -- let us foot soldiers know when the email campaign begins, & what the list of recipients should be.

"In contrast, the CBS News producer that dared to interrupt the final minutes of "CSI" was canned within a few days. That says a great deal about their priorities."

More people watch CSI... And I'm sure more people were complaining directly about missing the end of the show.

News programs are cheap, but not very profitable. The CSI shows are much more profitable (you don't see many news re-run years later in syndication or DVD sets of 60 minutes, do you?)

CBS isn't as worried about its news department's integrity because it is a commodity that isn't worth much to them.

CBS isn't as worried about its news department's integrity because it is a commodity that isn't worth much to them.

Perhaps, but by that logic, they should have no problem canning a news producer, no matter what the reason. Why prolong the agony?

Thanks to you helpong tear apart the forgeries, his retirement is smelly, whether it was pre-planned (it was) or not. Most folks now realize he had to go because he was getting to be an intolerable, hardened artery embarassment.

I predict Dan is not now likely to be a very active participant in 60 minutes, despite the geezer-reporting tradition of the show.

It's kind of rude and unfair to state my intuition, but I think dementia is going to take him out of the picture sooner than ANYONE planned.

If CBS continues to keep Mapes employed, they will have lost what little integrity the organization had left.

Dan had wanted to stay on til '06, but my understanding is that, for reasons which can only be speculated about, prior to the memo scandal, they were trying to push him out in spring of '05, with a face-saving offer of 60 minutes work. I'm sure memogate thing sealed the deal, and that most people take his removal from the anchor chair as having something to do with the flub-up.

For CBS, his removal has benefit of being a perceived reaction to the memo, but with plausible deniability. "See, heads rolled, but they didn't because they were going in for cryogenic freezing anyway." Best of both worlds.

Mapes is trickier. They cant retire her, and I presume the refusal to fire her is a kind of cynical denial of her unethical behaviour that protects the network from taint. They aren't fooling anyone if that is the case, but they are taking the Ralphie non-confession option and will not say who put Flick up to putting his tongue on the metal pole.

On the other hand,
There are rumors the report names Mapes as the actual forger. I don't give them much credence, but I could see stringing her along as part of an internal or even criminal investigation - if she's still their employee, perhaps there was a bigger chance of finding out exactly what DID go down and the extent of CBS's exposure to lawsuits or legal sanctions.

Smells like….

Calculated
Bull
Shit

Victory indeed. The blogosphere has helped unseat a tired old dinosaur that no one actually interested in news watches. Now old ladies can't fall asleep while not watching him spew the news. Bloggers, our saviors! Yet while tripping around the 'sphere today it seems to me many people's aims, whatever they may have been, are less in the spirit of encouraging objective, accurate reporting than in getting a bunch of people fired. How noble.

Mantis,

I'm sorry. Holding people accountable for dishonest reporting should really be accomplished by opening up a dialogue utilizing positive, non-confrontational, empowering language and positive reinforcement of shared values.

Not firing.

I'm sending Mapes some roses and note asking her to be a fair reporter from now on.

And I'll let other reporters know they might get roses and encouraging notes, too, if they let me down with biased and dishonest reporting; maybe even flowers of the month if they use fake evidence to back a story and lie about it.

Mantis -

Has the outcome of the election warped your judgment? "Getting a bunch of people fired" is called taking responsibility for foisting easily disproven fake documents on a public by a TRUSTED news organization - just before a presidential election. About eliminating sources that dilute an intended anti)Bush narrative. About ignoring experts. It's about the essential role of a media that plays (somewhat) honest broker in our democracy. When any "respected" cog of the media loses credibility, all of the media loses and then society loses.

Go read "All the Presidentr's Men" and ask yourself why Ben Bradlee was so afraid to make accusations that might be false against people working in the White House - NOT even the President at that point. Because they valued their credibility above all else and realized that if they were wrong, it could kill their paper. Kill it. That was the standard. Or just go rent the movie; but get a clue.

So what causes you to believe that the desire for firings is about anything ignoble? I personally find your attitude nasty and shallow. Congrats.

well, my thinking is that it is a victory. After all, Dan loses his most high-profile and well-loved seat as the voice of See BS. Even if he is still employed there, the symbolism of this demotion (if you will) makes it clear that Dan the Man is through.

Another thought was that this action might have been taken to appease the investigators in the writing of their final report. NCAA schools do this all the time in an effort to reduce the penalties imposed for wrongdoings. Maybe the thinking was that if they demoted Dan (a symbolic firing) that they could get by with just having to fire Mapes without serious consequences for the top dogs at the end of the story.

Well, Bill, I've actually read the book, and my judgement is just the same as it was before the election. But do you really think that we're dealing with the same world in respect to media as in the 1970s? Do you really think a network news organization has the same reliability and respect as they did 30 years ago? A newspaper? Do you actually believe that we are living in a time where the network news shows (or cable news, or newspapers) actually serve as honest brokers in our democracy? Or that people believe they do? Whether the should, or can, is another question. While I believe that the role of the media should be to be that honest broker, as they were (mostly) for decades before cable TV, and as they may be again, albeit in some altered form, I also recognize that virtually none of the MSM fills that role at present. Now if that is the issue, then I agree it is one of great concern. However, individual networks are not public utilities, and for people to demand the hirings and firings of certain people is misguided. Today I've seen quite a few people crying foul that this person or that person has not yet been fired or is allowed to continue working (despite the fact that CBS internal investigation is apparently not complete. I agree it's a little ridiculous to take this long). If they broke the law than that is a different story. But in the end we all have televisions and are free to not watch CBS if we find it objectionable. CBS, and all the other stations for that matter, do not listen to righteous indignation, they listen to ratings.
Further, do you really think that anyone who doesn't already know about CBS's "shattered credibility" cares the slightest bit? What causes me to believe that the desire for firings may be motivated by less than noble desires is the fact that while many bloggers claim the need to ramp up a "third wind" of CBS bashing, it seems to me that the only reason to beat a dead horse is because you just really hated that horse. And that's not a public service, that's a vendetta. In other words, aren't there more important things to do?

I grew up admiring Mr. Rather for how he stood up to Nixon. I will never forget those confrontations as the nation waited anxiously every news report he made. Lets not loose sight of his contribution in that era...Z

Mantis -

I never hated nor really paid attention to Dan Rather before this incident, as you describe. But I did pay attention to 60 Minutes - I liked it. And while your cynicism about the MSM is partially correct, the negliegence around obviously fake documents borders on collusion, which travels waaaay over the line, even in a cynical age. It is perfectly righteous to demand that Mary Mapes is fired for trying to sway a Presidential election with false 30 year-old documents obviously typed in MS Word, and her direct communication/heads up about the story to the opposing Presidential campaign.

If you disagree with that, I can't help you. I disagree with you strongly, to the point of scorn. CBS hurts everyone in teh MSM if they allow this woman to go unpunished for such outrageous behavior preceding an election.

I had a forensics expert declare the docs probably false within 5 hours. Mapes needs to be fired. She either knew they were fake, which is malicious, or was negliegent to the point of professional incompetence. I have a right to be angry at an attempt to sway an election and attack the President with false accusations, and you are mistaken if you criticize me for some motives reliant on a petty grudge against a particular news organization or anchor. My grudge is against much of the MSM in general; it's an attempt to hold them accountable for the exact criticisms you wield.

We may agree on much of the criticism, but the fundamental difference between me and you is the fact that you sit around and backbite and grumble about it from your all-knowing yet futile perch, throwing your hands up in apathy tinged with weary negativity and scornful cool, whereas people like me actually get up off our ass and do something about it.

To each their own.

Just to add a bit. Something interesting here is that Bradlee legitimately worried that printing false accusations against the White House would, as you said, kill the Post. It would have killed it because people would have stopped reading it, right? Now we have a similar situation but it seems that the largest consequence will be an anchor retiring his post. The difference, it seems to me, is that in the 1970's and before institutions like CBS and WaPo actually meant something to people. The only news company I that seems to mean anything to anyone nowadays is FOX, but I think we all know that is for different reasons than the kind of respect people had for news institutions in days past. It seems you wish for a day when news companies lost their credibility and failed if they weren't honest with the public, but they would have failed not because the people were fired, but because the public lost faith in the institution. So shouldn't your problem be not with CBS executives, but the public at large? What to do about them?

I'm doing my best with the public. I'm only one blogger.

But teh fact is, the media cannot simply rely on a marketplace of ideas to maintain credibility. It NEEDS professional standards that are self-enforced, because what is naturally popular is not naturally ethical. That's exactly why we need to attempt to revive the old rules, because alternative outlets like bloggers are too partisan and don't have the resources to provide news like the MSM.

It is not unrealistic to demand accountability for fake documents.

Bill,
Touchy tonight? Well, first of all let me respond to some of the more personal content of your post. You have no idea what I do outside of a few opinions I post on your site. I appreciate that you are doing your part, but since you don't have a clue what I do with my life outside of the handful of minutes I've spent typing posts to your comments section, maybe you shouldn't throw around such criticisms. I will have you know that for my part I spend what time I can outside of grad school and work offering tech help and maintenance to NPOs and NGOs. I believe in the power and future of new media and am committed to narrowing the digital divide as much as possible. Now while that may not be a blog or anything, I'm proud of the work I do and would appreciate you getting off your high horse for a moment to appreciate that there are other ways to "get of your ass and do something about it."

I am cynical, but not apathetic. I have no all-knowing perch to sit on, nor do I profess to be right about everything I say. I share my opinions here because I like an energetic argument. If you would prefer I not post on your blog, I would honor such wishes.

And by the way, I never said they shouldn't be fired. They probably should. But I'm not going to keep saying it over and over. I don't watch CBS anyway so what do I care? I know where the real journalism is.

"Touchy tonight[?]"

It's kind of interesting when people initially flame via comments or e-mail, and then belittle any (probably less) animated response with some defensive or condescending remark saying "touchy, touchy." Let's revisit your original post:

Bloggers, our saviors! Yet while tripping around the 'sphere today it seems to me many people's aims, whatever they may have been, are less in the spirit of encouraging objective, accurate reporting than in getting a bunch of people fired. How noble.

Look in the mirror and adjust your tone. You come in firing, don't be surprised when you get a well-earned spanking.

Bill makes a good point though-within a few hours there was credible evidence that those documents were fake. And the evidence against them was downright overwelming, and CBS and Dan continued to defend them in the face of that evidence.

They got lazy, but even worse than being lazy, they tried to influence an election with forged documents.

If CBS keeps Mapes around, they won't have any credibilty left.

Those of you who feel that Dan Rather did a good job in the past seeem to forget what happened with the documents. The documents exposed a larger issue, that of negligent judgement.

It was pure luck that Rather ran with a story and the documents appeared on the web site so they could be questioned.

The documents were found out so quickly and Rather defended them with additional interviews that were shown to be flawed.

You don't change your spots overnight. I seriously question everything the man has ever done. How long has he been using a less than perfect evaluation of evidence or witnesses.

This is the problem with some in the media. Get a thesis and find the evidence and witnesses to fit the thesis.

'Lets not loose sight of his contribution in that era...Z'

I can't lose sight of it because it's so distant in the rearview mirror it has no focus.

'whatever they may have been, are less in the spirit of encouraging objective, accurate reporting than in getting a bunch of people fired. How noble.'

Sorry - it's like when a crooked lawyer gets disbarred or an irresponsible doctor loses their license. Just that they're gone is good for the public.