Kicking and Screaming

The papers, airwaves, and Internet are filled with news and commentary on Rathergate's latest (but not final) chapter. But I want to begin with a story I heard yesterday afternoon on NPR, wherein correspondent Neda Ulaby interviewed Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute and Marvin Kalb of Harvard's Shorenstein Center (and former Edward R. Murrow Professor of Press and Public Policy -- a nice touch to the story).

Kalb is often trotted out to offer wise-man-style commentary on matters of interest so grave that mere journalists can't be relied upon to grasp them, much less explain their significance to an ignorant public. With brow perpetually furrowed (like going on the air sans jacket, it shows you're serious and working hard in the peoples' interest), he's portrayed as one of the straight men of network news.

His explanation of his former colleague Dan's actions? Why, they're all after the story, of course, and at break-neck speed. Like Sandy Berger stuffing his pants with secret documents (that just happen to contain information damaging to the Clinton administration's reputation), Cowboy Dan just got a little SLOPPY with his work:

Kalb: "People are under p-h-e-n-o-m-e-n-a-l pressure to get a story, to get it fast, to get it first, to get it out on the air, to let it be known to alllllll of the bloggers in the world that CBS was two-tenths of one second faster in getting the story on the air than was NBC. This is silly."

Indeed it is. In fact, that's about the silliest explanation I've heard thus far. And take note of the sideways slap at bloggers, who, Kalb implies, are responsible for forcing CBS to rush to air with fake documents in order to damage the president, all the while working in cahoots with the DNC.

Since when did bloggers become concerned with which network wins the race for breaking news? What concerned bloggers, as Kalb knows, was the accuracy of Rather's report, not the speed with which he broke it.

Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute naturally understands the true importance of the story, and he's concerned that journalists will be scared away by Dan's little problem. At the end of the NPR broadcast, Poynter noted that there's "blood in the water," "sharks out in the water," but that reporters must "continue to cover this story of President Bush and his National Guard duty." To which correspondent Ulaby intoned: "That may be difficult in a story that has been so profoundly politicized."

So there you have it -- it's the right that has politicized things here, and by doing so they've (i.e., the sharks) made it dangerous for decent, hard-working journalists, none of whom have an agenda, to get to the real task at hand, which is covering the non-story raised by fake documents procured by a man with a history of mental illness and mendacity. The object of the story, bringing down a sitting president by any means necessary, remains in tact. What's not to understand?

These collective hissy fits aren't the first we've heard, and the petulance so clear here is bound to spread throughout the profession. After all, they all drink from the same trough.

This morning's WSJ (free) says that CBS had better "get to the bottom" of Rather's story itself. That's excellent advice, since it places the emphasis where it needs to be -- on Dan Rather and team -- rather than on the purported story.

USA today has stories here and here that give Burkett ample rope to continue his public hanging, including his make-believe friends George Conn and Lucy Ramirez. I had make-believe friends once, but it was a long, long time ago in a town far away, and I can honestly say I haven't spoken to them in decades.

The second story sited above details the contacts between CBS and the DNC, as does this morning's NYT. This collusion, long-suspected or, perhaps better, assumed by what we'll call the sentient crowd, is of course at the heart of the story and explains the continued stone-walling and sloppy (that word again!) excuse-making from the ancien regime.

According to the Times: "Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry, acknowledged today that he had talked to Mr. Burkett. He said he had done so at the behest of a CBS producer [Mary Mapes], who had promised to help Mr. Burkett, an ardent Bush opponent, relay some campaign advice. Mr. Lockhart said there was no connection between the campaign and the memos."

USA Today reports the scene in greater detail:

"Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a producer talked to him about the '60 Minutes' program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

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

"The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election. This 'poses a real danger to the potential credibility ... of a news organization,' said Aly Colón, a news ethicist at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

"'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 Burkett and the Kerry campaign. 'It was not part of any deal' 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.

"'My interest was to get the attention of the national (campaign) to defend against the ... attacks,' Burkett said, adding that he also talked to former Georgia senator Max Cleland and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean during the past 45 days. 'Neither the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign had anything to do with the documents,' he said.

CBS's web site reports that Joe Lockhart can't recall what he discussed with Burkett, but it sure wasn't about those records or the Guard: "Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he had spoken to Burkett at the request of Mary Mapes, producer for the story. But Lockhart said he did not recall speaking about the National Guard to Burkett, and ended the call after taking a few minutes of campaign advice."

Must've been asking Burkett for some good bbq joints around there.

More must-reads this morning include: John Podhoretz, Power Line, and Allah Pundit, Paul at Wizbang, and Hugh Hewitt.