EXTRA: Report on the Report

REVIEWING THE REPORT

The long-awaited report on what has been called Rathergate has been released. The document comprising 234 pages is thorough and does a good job of documenting the Panel’s findings. Parts of the document are so detailed that to repeat them here is just a waste of your time and mine. The complete document can be found on the CBS News website.

There are, however, some interesting findings, as well as, a glimpse into the inner workings of CBS News and 60 Minutes Wednesday in particular. The overall tone of the document tries to show Mary Mapes, producer of the segment, the “bad guy.” That it was he reputation and experience at CBS News that enabled her to avoid many of the checks and balances normally associated with a high quality news organization. Many CBS staffers described the activity surrounding the segment and the coverup and defense of the sgement that is described as a “perfect storm.” The Panel seemed to understand the “perfect storm” analogy, but criticized CBS News and 60 Minures Wednesday staff for allowing the “perfect storm” to occur.

The Panel; described the problems with the segment as “myopic zeal” to “crash” (rush into production) the segment. The Panel noted that their original focus was the Killian documents, but the reporting and production of the segment were a larger problem.

The Panel notes the areas of problems and failures.

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment
were:

1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any
document examiner;

2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one
document used in the Segment;

3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;

4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;

5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;

6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;

7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;

8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;

9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and

10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry - a clear
conflict of interest - that created the appearance of a political bias.

The Panel also pointed out that while there were problems with the production and reporting of the segment, the response to criticism and the coverup were equally troubling. The Panel calls this part of the investigation The Aftermath.

Among the more egregious shortcomings during
the Aftermath were:

1. The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;

2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;

3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;

4. The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;

5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and

6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

One part of the Aftermath was the eventual “apology” by Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News. The Panel was troubled by the content of the apology especially the part concerning the source of the documents. In the “apology” Rather said that Burkett had “changed” the source of th documents and it could not be verified. The Panels notes that its is confused by that statement noting that 60 Minutes Wednesday had not attempted to verify any source.

Rather told the Panel that he did not agree with the apology, but made the apology and granted the interview to WCBS in New York to support CBS and CBS News. He told the Panel that he continues to believe that the documents and their content are correct. The Panel finds this troubling.

The Panel also criticizes 60 Minutes Wednesday executives for allow Mary Mapes to contact the Kerry campaign at the insistence of Burkett. The story that Mapes tells about the contact contradicts statements by John Howard, Executive Producer, Betsy West, Sr. VP, and Mary Murphy, Senior Producer. It also conflicts somewhat with the recollection of Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign.

While the Panel was unable to resolve the conflicts in the statements or whether Mapes had received permission to call Lockhart, the Panel finds any contact inappropriate.

There is much more in the document that you can read for yourself. It is almost like a novel with all the little plot twists, lies, and, yes, videotape.

The conclusion of the Panel are interesting. While it find the segment to be unfair and not balanced, it does not believe that it was part of a political agenda. The Panel, in my estimation, failed to grasp the role of Mapes and Rather in the development of this story over a period of years. Mapes had first looked into the President Guard Service when he ran for Governor of Texas. She continued on this “crusade” during the 2000 Election, and, obviously, in the 2004 election. Her “myopic zeal” was intended to change the course of the election. If this does not embody a political agenda, then the Kerry campaign was not running for office.

I believe the Panel was correct in finding that Mapes was the motivating force behind the segment. Unfortunately, they place little responsibility on Dan Rather. Rather had worked with Mapes on this story for more than five years. He was also willing and eager to change the course of the election. He is equally as culpable as Mapes for the tone and tenor of the segment and the failure of Mapes and her 60 Minutes Wednesday colleagues to prepare a fair and balanced segment. This failure and Rather's complicity in it should have earned him a dismissal or resignation. It did not.

Of the four individuals ousted by CBS News only Mapes was fired. The others, Josh Howard, Mary Murphy, and Betsy West were asked to resign. Dan Rather and Andrew Heyward, CBS News President, were spared any punishment.

According to reports, Heyward was spared reassignment, resignation, or dismissal because he told Betsy West to investigate the story thoroughly before it aired. The timing of that request was hours before the segment was aired. West, for some reason, chose not to follow this directive and did not use her position to postpone or cancel the segment. I agree that West should have been dismissed.

There is also no doubt that Josh Howard and Mary Murphy were culpable for their failure to properly supervise Mary Mapes and the segment. As noted earlier, Mapes’ reputation, experience, and long-standing relationship with Dan Rather more than likely intimidated a production team that had just joined the program. The September 8th show was the first with segments from the new production team. While that is no excuse for poor judgement and leadership, it does explain, in part, how Mapes “railroaded” the sgement into production.

Following the release of the report, CBS President Leslie Moonves, issue a statement that, in part, demonstrated what CBS News will do to prevent this type of reporting in the future.

Moonves' statement reads, in part:
"The Panel finds that the report was "crashed" -- rushed onto the air -- to beat the perceived competition, and it further says "the fact is that basic journalistic steps were not carried out in a manner consistent with accurate and fair reporting, leading to countless misstatements and omissions." Indeed, there were lapses every step of the way -- in the reporting and the vetting of the segment and in the reaction of CBS News in the aftermath of the report.

"As far as the question of reporting is concerned, the bottom line is that much of the September 8th broadcast was wrong, incomplete, or unfair. The Panel found that the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report -- that President Bush had received special treatment more than 30 years ago, getting into the Guard ahead of many other applicants, and had done so to avoid service in Vietnam. As the Panel found, statements made by sources were ignored, as were notes in Mapes' own files.

"Most troubling, however, are the Panel's findings regarding Mapes' ongoing contention, later proven to be false, that the documents used in the story were authenticated and had been obtained from a "rock-solid" source who had established, in retrospect, a questionable chain of custody for them. The Panel also found that Mapes presented half-truths as facts to those with whom she worked. And they trusted her, relied on her impressive reputation and proven track record, and did not hold her to the high standards of accountability that have always been the backbone of CBS News reporting."

The panel recommended, and Moonves agreed to appoint, a new Senior Vice President of Standards and Special Projects, a job that will report directly to the President of CBS News. Moonves named Linda Mason, a long-time CBS producer and executive producer, to the position.

CBS also promised to make some other changes:
"If the validity of information presented in a segment comes under a significant challenge, such as occurred with the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, reporting on the challenge will not be left entirely in the hands of those who created the segment at issue. Instead, an additional team, led by someone not involved in the original segment, will be assigned to take the lead in the coverage.

"In sensitive stories relying on sources who cannot be identified on the air, senior management must, when appropriate, know not just the name of the source, but all relevant background that would assist in editorial news decisions. Difficulties in this regard should be reviewed with the Standards Executive.

"CBS News management must make it clear to all personnel that competitive pressure alone cannot be allowed to prompt the airing of a story. As the Panel points out, it would have been better to "lose" the story on the disputed memos to a competitor than to air it short of vetting to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy.

"Correspondents, producers and associate producers must disclose to the executive producer and senior producers all relevant information unearthed in reporting the story, both supporting and challenging the segment's findings.

"On primetime broadcasts, all on-camera interviews done for a segment, whether or not aired, should be reviewed by the person assigned script review responsibility to ensure that the segment presents fairly and accurately what was said in the interviews and is not contradicted by interviews which do not appear in the finished segment.

"CBS News producers and management will work closely with the CBS Communications area to ensure that all information provided to the department and then disseminated to the public is fair and accurate.

"CBS News management should require correspondents to regularly and fully participate to the maximum extent possible in the preparation, vetting and pre-broadcast screening of stories. Management should review instances where the press of other responsibilities does not permit this and make any appropriate changes to the production and vetting structure to take account of reality."

Will all these changes help CBS News regain its credibility? Only, in part, the Aftermath did more than the segment to severely damage the credibility of CBS News and the 60 Minutes franchise. For the near future political figures and others involved in controversial issues will, more than likely, shy away from CBS reporters and producers.

Will CBS News survive? Yes, but it will (and should) be a very different organization.

Moonves did make a comment that seems to contradict statements of Dan Rather. Rather said when he announced his retirement from the anchor chair, that the ongoing investigation into the segment had “nothing” to do with his “retirement” from the CBS Evening News.

Moonves has a slightly different take on the subject. In his statement, Moonves suggested that leaving the anchor chair was a part of the changes required at CBS News. He said that given Rather’s decision to leave the anchor chair in March, “we believe any further action would be inappropriate.”

What’s next? Reports are that morale at CBS News is at an all time low. It should be. The organization proved it could not produce a fair and appropriate segment on a controversial issue. It did, however, demonstrate that, if forced to, it would hold accountable lower level individuals responsible for the failure.