Monday, January 10

On the CBS Report

Ok, I've read the first 50 pages or so of the report. For now, I'm done, I've gargled, and now I feel better. I've read commentary by Powerline, Captains Quarters, and a few other places. Here's 2 cents to toss into the ring.

Mr Hinderaker thinks that it doesn't really matter that the report did not explicitly conclude that the documents were forged, for any sentient reader will come to that conclusion. But I think this misses the point that if they were forged, seeking the author of the forgery becomes relevant. If the documents are not assumed to be a forgery, only the questionable nature and error in using the documents is relevant, not the source.

All the posters I've seen have decried the inability of the panel to wake up and smell the roses and admit that political bias motivated Mr Rather and Ms Mapes. It seems to me, they asked the question, got a negative reply and moved on. One might wonder how they might try to either establish or deny the presence of political motivations? Internal motivations are hard to come by, but this kind of analysis is not unknown in either the legal or historical professions. Given Mr Rather's current public position of still protesting that the documents may be authentic, one might come to the conclusion that his problem may not ultimately be bias, but perspicacity. However, the inability to look harder at the bias question allows the report to skin past the politically motivated reasons for rushing the story to press. It mentions the desire to beat the competition to the story. However, this story was in the works for many years. It was only rushed for the last few days? Why? Well, this report doesn't dig far enough to answer that, and by skipping bias, probably dodges the real reasons.