Did CBS Deceive Viewers about Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb Controversy?

Rush Limbaugh was complaining this week on his show that on the Friday before the Super Bowl CBS ran a hit piece about him which deceived viewers about the 2003 controversy in which he said that sports reporters overrated Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb because the reporters wanted a black quarterback to succeed.

Looking at the transcript of both the CBS broadcast and Limbaugh’s comments, its hard not to conclude that CBS ran the story with the intent to deceive its viewers.

Going back to the original comments in 2003, Limbaugh’s claim was that McNabb was not a great quarterback and that, instead, Philadelphia’s success was due largely to its defense. Because sports reporters wanted a black quarterback to be seen a successful, however, sports reporters over-emphasized McNabb’s role in the Eagle’s success and downplayed his role in its successive NFC Championship losses.

Just for the record, I agree with that anaylsis except the part about the black quarterback. I think reporters in general want to write about the next great quarterback rather than the next great NFL defense.

Regardless, this year with the Eagles in the Super Bowl, Limbaugh praised McNabb on his show and said that the quarterback had improved tremendously since 2003 and deserved the praise that was being heaped upon him. Here’s what Limbaugh said of McNabb after the NFC championship game when a caller asked if Limbaugh’s opinion of McNabb had changed,

You know, it has. Since you’ve called and brought this up: At the time (in 2003), McNabb, the Eagles were 1-3 or 1-4. McNabb couldn’t complete a pass over 20 yards. They had just come off two championship game losses and the third was coming up. But, since, yeah, there’s been a demonstrable change in McNabb’s performance, pure and simple. There’s no question there has been. I think he was motivated, inspired by a whole lot of things. There’s no question McNabb has improved and I’m happy to see it. I like quality football.

Limbaugh also told the caller that the situation in 2005 was different than in 2003, when Limbaugh made his controversial remarks, because back then, “when the defense … was propping the Eagles up, (media) were still giving McNabb credit- because there’s this social hope.”

CBS News chose to portray this exchange as nothing but one long slam against McNabb. Here’s how Jim Acosta chose to report the above remarks,

Mr. RUSH LIMBAUGH: The specific thing about Donovan McNabb was he…

ACOSTA: That is, unless, you’re Rush Limbaugh, who last week said on his talk show sports reporters give too much credit to McNabb.

Mr. LIMBAUGH: They looked the other way when the defense of the Eagles was propping the Eagles up and were still giving McNabb credit, because there’s this social hope…

ACOSTA: A social hope, Limbaugh said, for black quarterbacks.

Mr. LIMBAUGH: I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.

ACOSTA: Virtually the same remark that got him canned by ESPN in 2003. This week, McNabb fired one down Limbaugh’s throat.

Mr. DONOVAN McNABB (Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback): I don’t lower myself to anyone else because, you know, the type of person they are.

ACOSTA: For many of the sportscasters covering the Super Bowl, Limbaugh’s comments are a non-issue. The question is being raised: Do these statements say more about Donovan McNabb or Rush Limbaugh? ESPN’s Stuart Scott believes football has moved on; Limbaugh hasn’t.

What’s going on there, do you think?

Limbaugh described why he believed two years ago that Donovan McNabb was overrated — Acosta reports that as if Limbaugh still believes that way. Limbaugh praises McNabb and says he’s improved tremendously since 2003. Acosta lies and says that Limbaugh still thinks McNabb receives too much credit.

This is just like the Bill Moyers/James Watt story — “journalists” with an axe to grind simply fit the subject of their wrath into cookie cutter templates and the truth be damned.

Sources:

Rush Decision: Limbaugh Lauds McNabb. Scripps Howard, February 1, 2005.

Some reacting to comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding African-Americans in the NFL. Dan Rather and Jim Acosta, CBS News, February 4, 2005.

Dan Rather Does McNabb Hit Piece. Rush Limbaugh, February 14, 2005.

Burkett Demanded and Received Quid Pro Quo: Documents for Access to Joe Lockhart

When I asked here if Bill Burkett received a quid pro quo from Mary Mapes I assumed we would never really know the answer. Boy was I wrong. According to USA Today,

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

“At Burkett’s request, we gave his (telephone) number to the campaign,” said Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president.

CBS would not discuss the propriety of the network serving as a conduit between its partisan source, Burkett, and the Kerry campaign. “It was not part of any deal” with Burkett to obtain the documents, West said, declining to elaborate.

But Burkett said Monday that his contact with Lockhart was indeed part of an “understanding” with CBS. Burkett said his interest in contacting the campaign was to offer advice in responding to Republican criticisms about Kerry’s Vietnam service. It had nothing to do with the documents, he said.

Hmmm…maybe someone should tell West that Burkett is an “unimpeachable source” opposed only by right wing political operatives. This is turning into a conservative wet dream — CBS acting as a conduit hooking up anti-Bush activists with the Kerry campaign in exchange for fake documents designed to impugn the president and influence the upcoming election. I can’t wait for the TV movie about this, presumably on Fox.

The bigger problem for the Kerry campaign is that they’re slowly but surely getting drawn into the scandal. Lockhart claims that he talked to Burkett for only a few minutes and not about any documents. But National Review notes some strangely convenient timing — CBS’ story runs on September 8, and on September 9 the DNC unveils its “Fortunate Son” campaign attacking Bush’s National Guard service. That campaign, coincidentally, is centered around the very documents that Lockhart says he never discussed with Burkett,

The CBS story based on the memos the evening of Sept. 8. Are we to believe that the Democratic National Committee put together “Operation Fortunate Son,” in which these memos are front and center, entirely in the hours after the CBS report, and yet had their campaign ready so that these memos are referred to in the first words of the AP story Sept. 9?

Are we to believe that the DNC didn’t know ahead of time what was in those memos, and how they could be used to attack the president?

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a lawyer. Would this qualify as circumstantial evidence that CBS and the DNC were collaborating on using the memos before the story ran?

As Glenn Reynolds puts it, “Shouldn’t CBS just register as a 527 and have done with it?”

Indeed.

Does CBS See Itself as Part of the Kerry Campaign?

There was some small debate a bit ago in the discussion forum on whether or not the media was really liberal. PowerlineBog.Com points to this story which in many ways goes to the heart of that question. The highlights (emphasis added),

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

“He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat” allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. “He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more.”

Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.

. . .

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. “She basically said there’s a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you,” Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush’s Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records “that might move the story forward. She didn’t tell me what they said.”

What in the hell is a CBS producer doing acting as a conduit between an anti-Bush partisan and the Kerry campaign? Burkett has made it clear that he was angry that the Kerry campaign hadn’t returned his calls. Did he reach a quid pro quo with Mapes to contact Lockhart on his behalf in exchange for cooperation on the “60 Minutes II” piece about Bush’s National Guard service? Enquiring minds want to know.

Imagine the outrage if it were revealed that Fox’s Brit Hume had last year suggested that someone in the Bush administration given Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s John O’Neill a call because O’Neill was being helpful on an anti-Kerry story?

This is apparently what passes for “good faith” at CBS.

Source:

Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer. Associated Press, September 21, 2004.

Rather’s Lying Retraction

So today Dan Rather apparently joined the ranks of right wing Internet partisans and sort of conceded the documents were fake. But Rather can’t help do a little CYA himself with this embarassing lie in his non-apology,

We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Hmmm…this is what Rather apparently thinks “good faith” means:

  • Treating a known anti-Bush partisan, Bill Burkett, as an “unimpeachable source”
  • Failing to interview Lt. Killian’s widow or son
  • Ignoring the document experts who told CBS that there were problems with the memos, while exagerrating what its signature expert Marcel Matley and document expert James Pierce actually said about the validity of the doucments
  • Giving the White House the documents three hours before broadcast and then claiming that since the White House didn’t disupte the authenticity in those 180 minutes that this was evidence they were authentic
  • Slamming as right wing partisans Internet critics who established within 24 hours of the 60 Minutes II broadcast that the documents were almost certainly fakes
  • Stonewalling and insisting that there was no need for an internal CBS investigation, much less an independent investigation, for more than a week after it was abundantly clear that there were serious problems with the memos

It was kind of funny to see Rather ripping on Fox the other day when a Fox reporter tried to get his comments about the scandal. Fox has been a favorite whipping boy of liberals and leftists and an object of scorn for many media elites. But Rather has proven the most diehard critics of the “liberal media” correct in this case — Rather and CBS were so anxious to get a scoop that could have affected the upcoming presidential election that they appear to have put their ideological and intellectual blinders on and ran the story based on almost nothing in the way of verification, and then stubbornly insisted the story was true . . . had to be true . . . when it was clear to most everyone else that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.

I have friends who refuse to watch anything but Fox, arguing that they’re simply sick of the “liberal media’s” lies and distortions. I think that’s extreme, but it’s less so now thanks to Rather’s bizarre behavior which pretyt much confirmed every single conservative criticism of network news.

Amusing CBS Story on Fake Documents

CBS’ website actually has a CBS/AP story that reads,

CBS News planned Monday to issue a statement about documents purporting to show President Bush neglected some duties when he was in the National Guard more than 30 years ago.

. . .

According to The Washington Post, the network plans to say it was misled about the authenticity of the documents.

The New York Times reports that CBS News officials met Sunday evening with anchor Dan Rather, the reporter of the contested story, to discuss the network’s next steps.

In other news, I tried to contact the publisher of Brian.Carnell.Com for his reaction to this story, but received a stern “no comment.”

Source:

CBS Plans New Memos Statement. September 20, 2004.

Is Bill Burkett the Source for the Memos?

According to the Washington Post,

Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush’s service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko’s copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.

. . .

There is only one Kinko’s in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents.

Again, if Bill Burkett turns out to have been the source, then CBS’ reputation is further trashed. Remember, they claimed that their source for the documents was an “unimpeachable” individual. Nobody in their right mind would describe Burkett that way (regardless of whether you find Burkett believable or not, he’s a partisan with an axe to grind.)

Source:

CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko’s. Michael Dobbs, Washington post, September 16, 2004.