Partial reaction

Like most people, I have not read the whole CBS Report. But, as a pundit, I must not allow this to prevent me from commenting.

I concur in part and dissent in part from Pajama Guy's findings (see below).

I disagree that Boccardi and Thornburgh are now the story. Their part is over. They've shown CBS was seriously deficient and now the question is how CBS reacts. Since blood has been spilled, most people will say CBS has taken action and it's time to Move On. Furthermore, the Panel's suggestions (more bureaucracy and oversight) are so predictable no one will care if they're followed.

I agree with Pajama Guy that the worst thing about the Report is a failure of nerve. Anyone who reads the section about the documents has to believe they're fraudulent (even if you can't prove a negative). By essentially showing something without concluding it, they give enough wiggle room for individuals in the scandal to claim they did their best and their hands are clean. And PJ Guy also has a good point that now no one will be looking for the forger.

However, I understand why Boccardi and Thornburgh did not conclude there was political bias. For one thing, to properly find this, they'd have to investigate a larger pattern of activity, which they weren't asked to do. Otherwise, those involved would claim they were just fighting for a great story, politics had nothing to do with it. More important, such a finding would have overshadowed everything else in the report. Rather than sticking to provable malfeasance, we'd have arguments over metaphysics. Mapes and Rather and their backers would stand as one, indignant, stating it's not enough Dick Thornburgh investigates facts, now he can read minds (and they'd believe it, too).

Finally, I don't care who was or wasn't fired. That's private business. What I would like to see are honest apologies. Yet, Mapes hasn't given an inch--she insists she did everything right and is being attacked unfairly. And higher-ups like Heyward can claim they've taken care of the problem by cleaning house. No one seems chastened.

Pajama Guy adds: The Mapes response is interesting. On one hand she may still be in denial about the story -- and genuinely convinced the documents are real. On the other, she may be doing exactly what CNN investigative producers April Oliver and Jack Smith did after their Tailwind story went up in flames. In that case, after CNN's outside review panel savaged their reporting, they kept insisting their story was correct and hired a team of lawyers to defend their honor and reputations. In the end, it's been reported at least, they actually got multi-million settlements. Think about it: They're at the center of one of the top two or three scandals in the history of TV news -- a scandal that inflicted huge damage on their employer. But in the end CNN ends up writing them checks that make them rich!

Who could blame Mapes' lawyer for thinking her incompetence may yet make her rich too?

And now come to think of it, who could blame the lawyers who reviewed the Boccardi and Thornburgh report for being very careful to not make definitive conclusions about forgeries or political bias -- out of fear that Mapes could sue them or CBS?

LAGuy adds: I think Pajama Guy has a point. After watching B and T discuss their report, I think they decided to be as forceful as they could within certain cautious parameters. In other words, they see what they've done as a stern rebuke. However, they figured as long as they could sternly rebuke CBS without (amazingly, when you think about it) claiming outright the documents were fraudulent or anyone's motives were politically questionable, that would be the safest way to play it.

Pajama Guy adds: Exactly. The problem with this approach is that it suggests that this story was potentially air-able had CBS taken a little more time to authenticate the documents. It also suggests CBS' decision to staunchly defend the segment was excusable, because the suits were simply relying on the plausible assurances of their producers and their producers' experts. In reality, of course, the 10-day defense was indefensible because the documents were obviously frauds. Anyone could see that, and Heyward and Rather did the dishonest, Clintonesque thing: deny, deny, deny in hopes of riding out the storm.

The question for me is why Boccardi and Thornburgh left this loophole for Moonves to save Rather and Heyward. Did Boccardi, himself a former news manager, sympathize with Heyward, knowing that every news exec can have his career and professional reputation destroyed by some rogue reporter? Did Thornburgh -- the former (and future?) politician -- see a chance to do a favor and earn a favor? Or were B&T just scrupulously reporting only absolutely provable facts -- assuming, perhaps, Moonves would do the honorable thing by firing Heyward and Rather too?