INDCJournal: The Story That Keeps on Going

« "Where's My Baseball Bat? THIS Is An OUTRAGE...." | Main | Will There Be Flu-Blogging? (UPDATED AGAIN) »

February 15, 2005

The Story That Keeps on Going

Posted by Bill

Ratherbiased previews "a blockbuster story in tomorrow's New York Observer:"

Josh Howard, the executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday" during Memogate and the only CBS employee who had the guts to suggest that the network admit to wrongdoing before Memogate became a mess is threatening CBS with a lawsuit if it does not sufficiently retract the original Bush Air Guard story and fully come clean about the role of upper management in the network's stonewall defense.
...
Howard is threatening to sue the network for wrongful termination and is said to be willing to testify under oath and subpoena secret internal documents and emails from his former employers.

Let the information come out.

UPDATE: The Observer article is up:

Mr. Howard and two other ousted CBS staffers�his top deputy, Mary Murphy, and CBS News senior vice president Betsy West�haven�t resigned. And sources close to Mr. Howard said that before any resignation comes, the 23-year CBS News veteran is demanding that the network retract Mr. Moonves� remarks, correct its official story line and ultimately clear his name.
Mr. Howard, those sources said, has hired a lawyer to develop a breach-of-contract suit against the network. Ms. Murphy and Ms. West have likewise hired litigators, according to associates of theirs, and all three remain CBS employees and collect weekly salaries from the company that asked them to tender their resignations.

Some of the notable parts:

Mr. Howard also believes, those sources said, that the report itself excludes evidence that would implicate top management at CBS and restore Mr. Howard�s reputation in the television news business.
...
In the event of a lawsuit, Mr. Howard has told associates that he would like to see Mr. Moonves and Mr. Schwartz put under oath to talk about their own roles in the network�s stubborn, hapless defense of the flawed segment on President Bush�s National Guard service.
Mr. Howard has also indicated to colleagues that he would subpoena specific CBS documents, including the e-mails of top executives. That might shed further light on what members of management were saying to each other on Friday, Sept. 10, two days after the segment aired�a day that Mr. Heyward and Mr. Schwartz were making important decisions about CBS�s defense strategy.

Interesting. And perhaps he has a right to be angry:

That was also when Mr. Howard�s leadership role, judging by CBS�s own account, stopped being so important. The network held Mr. Howard, as executive producer, responsible for airing the flawed segment. But it apparently ignored him when he asked management to reconsider the strategy of categorical denial that led to 12 days of stonewalling.

(Emphasis mine)

CBS is between a rock and a hard place on this - either they cave to the employees and face the renewed wrath of a blogosphere outraged over lack of accountability, or they go to court and watch helplessly as potentially embarrassing details come out via supoena. I'm certainly hoping for the latter. We want the full story.

Posted by Bill at February 15, 2005 10:19 PM | TrackBack (4)

Comments

Gosh, let's see what kind of dirt the DU digs up on Howard now... we did the gay prostitue thing already, will he be a he/she this time? I wonder...

Posted by: OneDrummer at February 15, 2005 11:04 PM

In my best Keanu Reeves...

whoa!

Posted by: John at February 15, 2005 11:22 PM

I prefer the Joey Lawrence:

"Whoa!"

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 15, 2005 11:37 PM

I prefere Crush, from Finding Nemo.

Yeah, we saw you and we were like "whoa", and you were like "whoa..." and we went like, "whoa..."

Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at February 16, 2005 09:02 AM

Unintended irony: getting sued for a softball investigation into employees' wrongdoing. If this is the case*, CBS's patriarcal slip was in expecting Howard et al to happily fall on their swords to avoid being run through by management. But that won't salvage their careers after the report and Moonves commenting as if a legal verdict had been rendered.

This was a kangaroo court that CBS tried to give an "official and objective" veneer. If they're dragged through court it's their own doing. I don't blame Howard for resorting to a fight - he's expected to leave quietly while Rather sings "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" from his perch at 60 Minutes.

* CBS may have framed the resignation request without intending to enforce it. They are either complicit in the employees staying and there will be no litigation (which, if they are, Howard apparantly doesn't know it), or they will find they've overplayed their hand and will a) try to ride out the storm of public outrage or b) wind up in court.

They should have done it right in the first place, however painful it would have been. They'd have better standing for a court battle and might have salvaged their integrity with the millions that care.

Posted by: tee bee at February 16, 2005 11:13 AM

I'll go with Nelson Lutz's "Ha ha!"

Posted by: rbj at February 16, 2005 12:57 PM

I think Howard is quite correct and the report does support him in his contentions. It's (excuse me, I can't help myself) rather obvious that Mapes and Rather were stars, and that Howard had comparatively less pull within the organization.

From what's written in the report, Mapes actively lied during the vetting sessions. Was Howard supposed to do his own research about the documents? If he was, then those two CBS lawyers who were part of the vetting sessions and asked questions about the documents' authenticity should be fired too.

After the story aired and it became quickly clear that the story was false, did anyone higher up force Mapes to disgorge? No, they didn't. It seems blindingly obvious that everyone was afraid to take on the coalition of Rather and Mapes. Well, if Heyward couldn't get answers from these two after, how was Howard supposed to enforce solid investigative reporting before? Why was one of the recommended solutions in the report to establish a Senior Standards Executive, a person with real authority, to whom whistle-blowers could report?

Notice how the issue of who prepared the publicity counters to the accusations that the documents were forged was completely glossed over in the report. No one reading that report attentively could possibly conclude anything but that CBS News' entire culture did not reward accuracy and fairness and rewarded fame greatly.

Posted by: MaxedOutMama at February 17, 2005 08:22 PM