Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Hugh Hewitt takes aim at something said by LA Times Editor John Carroll, a reprise of something I mentioned at the time. Of course, I wasn’t the only one.

Hugh takes us step by step through Carroll’s speech to compare the words then to the CBS situation now. His conclusions are, shall we say, obvious:

How many think old media has been serving “the reader, the listener, the viewer” in “good faith?” That many are real journalists.

How many are reading the blogs, sifting through them for leads and facts that must be accounted for, accounting for persuasive arguments from credentialed experts? These are the real “future journalists.” And given the Los Angeles Times’ coverage of the forged docs, and using Carroll’s own standards, there are precious few “real” journalists at the Times these days, and thus far, the editors –speaking from their editorial page– are not among them.

I don’t claim to be a journalist. I comment on what I read and hear. But I believe that makes me a better journalist than many of the “professionals” drawing a paycheck from the likes of CBS News and the LA Times.

Wallace certifies this as a Real Bush Memo retrieved by his wife from her personal files. She once worked for Dubya, and was being sure to save such information just in case he decided to run for reelection.

When the story first broke, I didn’t know what to think of it. Then someone made a comment about the memos being from someone’s personal files. At first, I assumed they meant personnel files. Wrong.

Personnel files are treated like low-level classified material. They are “For Official Use Only”, and are controlled. When someone moves from one duty station to another, they are either forwarded to the gaining unit, or are sealed in an envelope for the individual to hand-carry. When you leave the military, these records are sent to a government repository. At one time, it was in St Louis. I don’t know where they go, now.

Personal files, on the other hand, are folders of material an individual may keep on his own. When you leave a unit, either by transfer or discharge, you either carry these with you or destroy them as no longer needed.

Assuming these personal files weren’t destroyed, the only logical place they could have come from is Lt. Col. Killian’s family.

I don’t think that’s the source.

Slatts pointed me toward a Top Ten list regarding Dan Rather. I like #3:

3. They think the Black Eye is a good symbol for their network.

Hindrocket compares the fake CBS document scandal to our perception of airplan hijackers pre-9/11. I think it is an apt comparison. We make many assumptions every day, most of the time without due consideration.

The fact that CBS was willing to barter away what remained of its reputation in exchange for an opportunity to help the John Kerry campaign requires us to re-examine our assumptions about the mainstream media, just as the emergence of the suicide bomber required us to re-examine certain assumptions about security. We never thought that a vast, powerful broadcast network would destroy its own reputation for political gain. Now we know that it can happen.

News bias has always existed. It is actually healthy. Competition drives people to perform. People with talent, that it. Kinda makes me wonder about the talent at places like CBS, AP, NBC, and Reuters. FoxNews, eager to be #1, have upset the applecart. And the old league are faltering. They cannot deal with competition. So they resort to inventing stories which have pizzazz.

And playing a role in an election has always suited media. Being the vanguard for a campaign, however, has always been a role filled by newspapers, not television. Especially not major news organizations. Is there a paradigm shift (I always hated that phrase), as Hindrocket suggests?

Jay Rosen, another whose opinion I seek on issues of media, has interesting observations, but does not yet draw any conclusions regarding the outcome of all this as regards credibility. And, as always, the commenters add to the dialog.

Why has CBS News acted more like a politician responding to criticism than a news organization after the truth?

I decided to see if our local CBS affiliate cared to take a stand.

I have been following the story of Dan Rather’s fake documents this week, and am concerned that your credibility will take a hit along with his. Jim Lago and I have discussed the research power of the internet, and how easily the memos were debunked within hours by people familiar with all facets of the documents from typesetting to personal experience with various typewriters. Doesn’t CBS have the same capability?

It is time for Dan Rather to prove his documents are real. They’ve already been shown not to be, but he insists they are. In a court of law, the case would have been thrown out post haste. Perhaps your station, and all other CBS affiliates can put the pressure on to make things right, one way or the other.

I’ll let you know if I get a response.

If any of you believe Dan Rather and Mike Wallace are professionals, take a quick read of John B. Dwyer’s most recent on American Thinker.

I remember another hit piece by Rather–an anti-gun Moore-style documentary–Guns of Autumn. The man finds news where there is none. I guess that’s what makes him a professional.

Jim called me last night all excited about the revelations regarding the fake (I think I’ll consider it so, now) document used in 60 Minutes. “You’ve got to come on in the morning and talk about this.” How can you decline something like that? So, this morning I stumbled and mumbled my way through the broadcast. Jim was still all worked up, and we both had difficulty staying on target. Consensus is that Dan Rather and his producers who put this document out as legitimate need to be very worried about their future.

He asked how I thought it would affect CBS’s credibility. It won’t. As with everything else in this current cultural divide, you either believe everything they say or nothing. Count me with the latter.

He did take issue with my contention that a broadcast license was a public trust. I understand his perspective as a radio man trying to make a profit. Business means you stay in business. Agree. But any time the government bequeaths a license, they are saying that you meet the necessary professional requirements such that the public can trust your expertise. Lawyers, doctors, engineers, and many other fields require a license to work in the public interest. I see no reason why broadcast media shouldn’t be compared in this way.

Like I said, Jim disagrees, but wouldn’t life be dull if we all agreed on everything?

***UPDATE***

And Wretchard has impeccable analysis:

The traditional news model is collapsing.

And now a Kerry document has appeared.