Apparently, he has a connection to the TVA that might taint any reporting he ever does on them.

Of course, he bought an ad from me, so this link is pure corruption. (Or would be, if his entry weren't funny.)

* * *

Seriously, the issue is sticky. I've worked for a lot of magazines, and there is almost always some kind of relationship between advertising and editorial. Rarely have I seen the kind of "wall" built between the two that I think we'd all like to think is there. Some things, however, are over the line:

• A publisher declaring that a line of products cannot be mentioned in a magazine, because the company behind them failed to buy any ad pages (really, I've heard of this happening);

• A publisher mandating that reviews of advertisers' products must be positive;

• A radio commentator taking money from the executive branch of the government in order to push their agenda;

• A cable channel taking money from the executive branch of the government to promote drug abstinence;

• A blogger failing to disclose his financing;

• An entire media establishment so intense in its hatred of the President that all journalistic standards are thrown out the window in their attempts to smear him, and any mention of Rathergate is now met with "well, what about those WMD documents?" (For one thing, those documents were only one of many reasons the international community was convinced Saddam had WMDs, instead of being central to the case. For another, it took real experts to suss out their being forgeries, instead of something that's obvious to anyone who did any typing in the 70s, and/or had anything to do with the desktop publishing revolution of the 80s.) Here, the "payola" is psychic, and has to do with earning the approval of one's social circle. But it's real nonetheless.

Posted by: Attila at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, it's here. Editor and Publisher reports:

Four CBS executives were fired Monday following the release of an independent investigation that said a "myopic zeal" led to a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's military service that relied on allegedly forged documents.

The network fired Mary Mapes, producer of the report; Josh Howard, executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday" and his top deputy Mary Murphy; and senior vice president Betsy West.

<. . .>

Dan Rather, who narrated the report, announced in November that he was stepping down as anchor of the "CBS Evening News," but insisted the timing had nothing to do with the investigation.

The independent investigators -- former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer of The Associated Press -- said they could find no evidence to conclude the report was fueled by a political agenda.

The network's drive to be the first to break a story about Bush's National Guard service was a key reason it produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet CBS News' internal standards, the investigators said.

What do you want to bet some bloggers will see things differently?

According to RatherBiased, there is a “war” going on within CBS over how much of the report to release publicly—and how soon. How much is released (and when) will tell us just how serious the folks at CBS are about changing the corporate culture.

UPDATE: The report is now available as a PDF. Outside the Beltway has the link, extensive quotes, analysis, and a mini-roundup of blogger reactions.

The main controversy in the 'sphere seems to be whether this report is a "whitewash" of the situation (Hugh Hewitt), or "damning" (James Joyner). It is apparent to me that some of the language was softened a little bit before the report was released (the point is made, for instance, that there's no "absolute certainty" that the memos in question were forged; sure—if someone has a secret time travel machine, the documents might have been produced in the present day by an individual who hopped right back to the 70s, clutching the memos in his/her hot little hands).

But the litanies of egregious lapses of journalistic integrity in the report speak for themselves, and of all the recent media scandals (The New York Times, etc.) this one has by far the highest "body count."

Dan Rather may still have his job, and he may well be sitting in the anchor's chair for a few more months. But he's been publicly humiliated, as has CBS in its entirety.

Diplomatic language aside, the report is ultimately brutal in its assessment, and it brought CBS to its knees. All that remains to be seen is whether this is a one-time gesture or a permanent change in the way 60 Minutes does business.

Posted by: Attila at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

. . . Though, in all fairness, I must admit I hope it doesn't happen quite this way. Not in every particular, at least. (The film is supposedly eight minutes long, but it felt like 4-5. They say if you give it two minutes, you'll stay for the whole eight.)

Via the Commissar, who's declared himself a "light blogger" for the indefinite future. The Ghost of Allah, I believe, is whispering in bloggers' ears: "if it doesn't pay enough to be a job, are you enjoying it enough to make it a hobby?" Don't listen: he'll drive you mad.

Posted by: Attila at 02:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.