« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
CBS Violates the Airwaves - Do Something
By now you probably know how CBS edited out McCain's completely dishonest and inaccurate answer to a question about the Surge in which he attempts to contradict completely accurate statements by Obama (that incidentally make McCain's main platform all the more shaky).
If you haven't read the reports, I'll posts links below in a comment, since I never have any luck with links in my posts.
But there's something you can do. You, and all of us, need to contact CBS and register our outrage at this unprofessional and, frankly, biased treatment of a presidential candidate. Why is it so bad?
Well, journalistic ethics are part of it, but worse, it's a presidential campaign. The idea is to see and hear who these candidates are. By shielding McCain from his own mistakes, CBS has denied the American people - or at least those who watch their shows - the truth about this candidate. They have hidden the fact that he is a lying old man who will say anything to hurt his opponent and try to become president - not, as he says, for the good of the country, but to satisfy his own insane ambitions, which have grown more out of touch with reality over the years.
So you can read the story and decide for yourselves, but if you want, you can start by writing to the CBS ombudsman email: publiceye@cbs.com and express your outrage and demand that they have Katie Couric issue a complete apology, air the cut segment and inform their viewers of their actions - at the very least. They should also analyze McCain's statement (the part that was cut) and explain to their readers why it is incorrect.
It's the least we can do...
Comments (45)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/cbs-violates-its-own-standards-and-practice-by-altering-online-transcript-of-mccain-interview/
July 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/mccain-anbar-history/
July 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended. this issue needs to be pressed (no pun intended), especially in light of McCain claiming media bias (accurately) in favor of Obama (inaccurately).
People should know where the true bias in the media is.
July 23, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Writing an email right now, raider! Thanks for the email addy.
July 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn right Raider! I'm with ya.
July 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done. I left a message.
July 23, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider,
Sending e-mail! Thanks.
July 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
One suggestion: you might want to send some letters - faxes, actually - to Congress. Especially given the wide readership of TPM you will be hitting a broad section of the country. After all, CBS requires licenses to broadcast.
A primer on communicating to Congress effectively is found here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/a-primer-on-dealing-with-congr.php
July 23, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, CBS does not require any license whatsoever to operate, except for the television stations it actually owns. The stations that carry CBS News do need licenses, but the last time a television station had its license lifted because of content was, well, probably never. And for a station even to be fined for the content supplied by a network is unheard of.
Further, the Fairness Doctrine is a a faint, wistful memory. There is no legal requirement that any station provide balance or even some perverted version of both sides of the story(vide Fox News).
Your only possibility of having an impact on any entity the size of CBS is through their advertisers. But since these, too, are primarily conservative corporate behemoths, your options pretty much boil down to like it or not like it.
Your emails may have the effect of making you feel better. If not, don't bother.
July 23, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Congress and the FCC have a lot of oversight -- just see the craziness about wardrobe malfunctions. Congressional pressure is a valuable tool (in addition to others, including the ones you mentioned).
Who knows? Maybe the fairness doctrine goes back in place. Pendulums do swing both ways.
July 23, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress has virtually no input in broadcast content any more. They gave it all away during the Presidencies of the Great Deregulators.
I'm glad you brought up the FCC. As you would expect, the FCC now consists of two Republicans, one Dem. One of the Republicans was the hyper-conservative son of Colin Powell -- Christopher? Can't remember. Anyhoo, he left. Some think he went because he wasn't right-wing enough for the Bushites.
So now it might cost a TV station or a network if they display the occasional tit or ass, or if Bono says "fuck" during an award ceremony. But trouble for unfairly criticising a Dem or giving too much coverage to a fellow wingnut? That news will come to you via Airborne Pork.
July 23, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the advertisers are key to impacting CBS. However, I don't think it matters that much if the advertisers are conservative behemoths, because first and foremost, they have their bottom line to worry about.
A group once educated consumers about the wasteful slaughter of Dolphins by those fishing for Tuna. Then a little boycott took hold in many places. Voila! Most of our Tuna became dolphin safe. (bush has diligently tried to undo that also, but last I heard, he was unsuccessful)
Will send a note of protest after this, raider99, so thanks for the notice and links.
July 23, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or at least had that little logo that says, "dolphin safe" on the label.
July 24, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you the best of luck convincing Coors to withhold ad expenditures because you dislike the way CBS edits their interviews.
July 24, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I wish you the best of luck convincing Coors to withhold ad expenditures because you dislike the way CBS edits their interviews."
That is not at all what I meant; sorry if I was unclear. I'll try again:
I meant that if enough CBS misinformation were exposed to viewers, many viewers will become less interested in watching CBS for news and commentary. A smaller number of viewers would affect the bottom line of advertisers whose ads air during the news and commentary times.
So it's possible that those who advertise with CBS might pressure CBS to tone it down if they think the viewers (their potential customers) are about to jump ship due to consistent misinformation. Or if enough viewers leave CBS, I gues the advertisers will just follow the viewers to more trusty sources of information and commentary.
Flight from the MSM could translate into a big income problem for CBS ahd others who peddle unbalanced news and commentary.
July 24, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you a lot of luck with this strategy as well.
July 24, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard, we may not have any effect, as you suspect, but at least we're starting to do something. I don't expect every foray into this conglomerate controlled arena to change the way they do things. What I do expect is that we'll get in the habit of taking action and that, in time, that action will have an effect. CBS will shrug off our comments, probably, but we start fighting by fighting, not by talking about it. So, I don't have any problem with your disdain for the effort. I can see that it looks futile to you. But for me, I am beginning to do what I can do, and looking for ways to do more.
You're a clever person. What would you do? Or would you just give up and assume it was impossible to have any effect? You know as well as I do that the major changes that have happened in our history would never have happened if people had not taken on seemingly impossible odds to do what they believed was right.
July 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please pardon the cynicism of a bitter old man, Raider. I've just spent too much time hanging around big corporations and radio and TV stations.
I applaud your efforts, even though I have grave doubts about their efficacy. I would just add one word of caution: Be very careful about spending all your energy and idealism on lost causes. Your chances of making any difference at all this way are slim, and you can become what Graham Greene called "A Burnt-Out Case" like me.
You're a clever person.
Now you're making me doubt your judgement.
What would you do?
I don't have the kind of specific answers you are looking for, but in general, do what you can and live with the results. I know that sounds rather Zen/New Age-y and I guess it is. Maybe it contradicts what I'm saying above.
As you may know, I don't hold beliefs of any sort, but it makes sense to me that when we call ourselves to account, we should ask ourselves if we have done the right thing for the right reasons. Sometimes doing the right thing yields the outcome we hoped for. Sometimes the opposite. Sometimes nothing. But we should hold ourselves responsible for our behavior rather than the product of our behavior. The universe is what it is and delivers consequences based on rules (or lack thereof) that no one will never understand completely.
Phew! Is that ethereal and diaphanous enuf 4 U?
July 24, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if you're still watching this, Tankard, but I want to thank you for your reply. I probably will do what I can, even in a losing cause, at least through the election. I am not worried about burnout since I am also cynical and have no great illusions. But I have visions, which is different, and some of those visions actually have us making a difference if we do something and keep doing it. Again, I will never say that we will succeed, only that if we don't do something, then we talk about our beliefs without backing them up. I've done that for most of my life, to be honest, and I am just getting around to doing what I can to make a difference.
Again, I appreciate your candor and your voice, though not always your sarcasm. Peace to you, brother.
July 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I'm still watching. I left a philosophical child behind here, and blogging is all about me. I'm really disappointed in you for not knowing that.
I'm sure you are sincere about your cynicism (is this possible??), your lack of illusion, and your vision. But you know what they say about scratching a cynic and finding a hopeless romantic underneath. Be careful.
IMNSHO, my candor and my sarcasm are both strengths.
And as-salaam alaykum right back atcha.
July 24, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad for you that McCain was right and Obama wrong as usual. CBS edited the response no doubt to protect Obama from looking more stupid than usual. The 'surge' is more than adding troops, it was an entirely new strategy, involving a more aggressive pursuit of the enemy into previously enemy held territory. It involved moving troops from large fortified bases into small deployments in the towns and villages that were liberated. The Anbar Awakening happened as the US cleared Al Quaeda from Ramadi under this new approach. That was the start of the surge, additional combat brigades arrived after that to secure and hold more areas. Those troops didn't start arriving for several months, and took several more months before they were all in place, but the surge was in effect long before that.
July 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, the administration finally admitted that they had been totally wrong about the levels of troop strength need to secure the country in the first place, so they scraped together what units they could, cut short some stateside rotations, forced some units that were not combat-ready back into ops positions, and came up with a Madison Avenue name for it: The Surge -- It's new and improved war-fighting -- It's 30,000 more bodies than we had in there before -- It's a sly nod toward what we should have done in the first g-d place to prevent the wholesale unraveling of the country in the wake of the fall of the Baath Party.
And now McCain wants credit for backing what Gen Ricardo Sanchez advocated in the first place, but got booted out the door for suggesting.
July 24, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sanchez's strategy was to stay in large fortified bases and go on stupid patrols that made them subject to IED's. McCain argued for more troops from day one, and he has been proven right. Do a little research.
July 24, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sanchez's strategy was forced on him by the administration's civilian leaders and staffers second-guessing what the military leadership said would be required to secure the country. If you lack the troop strength to go out and secure towns and villages, let alone a major city like Baghdad, and you are still tasked with trying to deal with a growing insurgency, then Sanchez' strategy is the only thing to do.
According to Richard Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (who was, ironically, trying to take the heat off Donald Rumsfeld when folks were calling for his resignation for interfereing with military planning to the point of endangering American lives), “In our system, when it’s all said and done … the civilians make the decisions,” he said. “And we live by those decisions.”
Remember Rumsfeld said, "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." But that's BS when the war you are going to is one you are starting.
In WWII we went to war with what we had, because we were attacked, but we quickly ramped up to make sure we had the resources to win because of the threat to our nation. In the case of Iraq, the administration used the absolute minimum resources they could, because they knew the country would not stand for the national commitment needed to fight a true war of necessity.
No draft, no rationing, no victory gardens, no scrap recycling. No armor on personnel vehicles. No repair parts. No padded helmets for ground troops. No support units in the field. Just the administrations' buddies' contractor firms filling no-bid contracts.
My research suggests that Sanchez was just one of a long line of generals shown the door because they weren't willing to toe the administration line. Sanchez feels he was thrown on the pile of excrement that was the Abu Ghraib scandal, and he may have some blame to share for that mess, being that he was commander when it went down. But those policies didn't originate with him, they originated with the civilian "leadership", and the US Senate sat by idly and watched this crap happening without any meaningful oversight or criticism.
So I am not impressed that McCain "argued for more troops from day one, and he has been proven right." He has been an enabler for this train wreck from day one, and he wants it to continue "for a hundred years." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
July 24, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog, you're a staunch supporter of the right wing. I'm ok with that, and welcome your opinions. You believe that McCain has shown the kind of military foresight necessary in a good leader. I haven't seen that, but I accept that you believe you have.
I have to ask, however, does your support for the right wing governance, which McCain will continue if elected, extend to the phenomenal debt we've incurred due to this Iraq war of choice? Do you also agree that it was better to attack Saddam than to complete our mission against Al Qaeda? Do you feel proud of the way Katrina was handled? Love our No Child Left Behind debasement of our education system? Enjoy the constant attacks on our environment, the denial of science - and, until quite recently, the utter denial of the issues of climate change? Do you still believe that lowering taxes on the rich and doing everything to support corporations actually does trickle down to the rest of the populace? Or do you care? Do you deny Darwin's theory while encouraging a Darwinian economy?
I'm just asking, because even if I believed that McCain was a brilliant military leader, I have to look at a bigger picture, because war is not my ideal and, whether necessary or not, it is only one part of the picture. And the picture McCain paints, as an extension of so many neocon fallacies, lies and distortions of our system of government and our ideals as a nation, is not one I could ever support.
July 24, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd and acted upon. Thanks for the heads up!
July 23, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Raider. I've sent mine.
July 23, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that they covered his azz and ommitted his answer, the answer that they inserted is very, very asnine and shameful. They inserted his specious comment that a sitting senator of the United States would rather lose a war to win an election. I don't know about you, but I personally find that extremely offensive.
July 23, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your post on this, Raider. I've been struggling with how to respond on this particular issue. When it's clear misreporting of factual information, it's much easier to call them out. But, in a case like this, the show used their editorial license to fashion a message of their chosing. I think this sort of bias is much more common than just plain saying something that's wrong, and it's harder to call them out. I like the approach of bringing their actions to light and asking them to explain why they did what they did - their journalistic rationale, and how this decision fits in with their goals for informing the public about this campaign. Accountability.
July 23, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd and acted upon. Thanks.
July 24, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crooks and Liars has some relevant information on the CBS editing and how they violated their own published standards.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/cbs-spokesman-distorts-standard-of-editing-on-couric-mccain-interview-heres-the-proof/
July 24, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, someone told me that Nancy Pelosi is trying to get the Fairness Doctrine reestablished. Does anyone know more about that?
July 24, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the way the Limbaughs, the Coulters, the Hannitys, and all of Fox News go after this initiative. They will suddenly discover the beauty and purity of the First Amendment and will blast any legislator who supports it for "stifling free speech."
If one drops an ice cube into a volcano, the ice cube explodes, lets off a tiny amount of steam, and is no more.
July 24, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
She of course wouldn't want to apply it to the NY Times, which ran Obama's op-ed but refused McCain's. You libs only see media bias when you think your candidate didn't get the preferential treatment you are used to getting (and feel entitled to).
July 24, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you are incorrect again. Twice.
1) The NYT doesn't use a resource owned by the people -- the airwaves -- to disseminate right-wing propaganda. It just uses privately-owned paper to disseminate right-wing propaganda.
2) The NYT asked Sen. McCain to re-write his piece to explain his plan rather than spout his invalid criticisms of Sen. Obama. They did not reject it in the sense you imply.
July 24, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't refuse to run it, they sent it back to be re-written, as there was little or nothing genuinely new or otherwise informative in the content.
And I think you know that.
July 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
there was little or nothing genuinely new or otherwise informative in the content. And I think you know that.
No, I doubt that Rush even mentioned that.
July 24, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah...point taken.
July 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an article from Broadcast and Television website that overviews Pelosi's effort to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.
Barack Obama does not support it's superimposition.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html
July 24, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that pictures are worth 1000 words -- and can be warped as well:
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/
July 24, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
way to go raider...enjhoy your posts and I always feel better taking some actions to our concerns!
Congrats!
July 24, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the FCC:
Tankard's info is woefully out of date. Powell hasn't been a commissioner for a while. And unlike his claim of 3 commissioners, there are 5.
For up to date information:
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/
July 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard's info is woefully out of date. Powell hasn't been a commissioner for a while.
Yeah, I said that.
And unlike his claim of 3 commissioners, there are 5.
Congratulations on having caught me in a mistake. Are there more Bushies than Dems? That's the point. Are they going to go after CBS for favoring McBush? That's the point.
Talk about woeful.
July 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't meant to be a game of gotcha. Your posts have the ring of "authority" -- therefore it's especially important to get the simplest of facts correct, else how can we be sure of your more complex judgements?
By the way, it was Michael Powell, just to refresh your memory. The Internet is just a click away.
July 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Internet is just a click away.
No kiddin'????
July 24, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment